Construction Laborers Trust Funds for Southern California Administrative Company v. Precision Masonry Builders, Inc., et al

Filing 25

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant Precision Masonry Builders failed to make the requisite retirement b enefit contributions under the governing labor contract. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1 .) Despite being properly served, Defendant has not filed an answer. (ECF No. 9 .) On August 1, 2016, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant Precision Mason ry Builders at Plaintiff's request. (ECF No. 17 .) However, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for default judgment with the Court. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than October 31, 2016, why the Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. No hearing will be held. Failure to file a timely written response to this Order will result in the dismissal of the action without prejudice without further warning from the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jy)

1

O

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

CONSTRUCTION LABORERS TRUST
FUNDS FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

COMPANY, a Delaware limited liability

THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE

company,

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20
21

Case No. 2:16-cv-04358-ODW(AFM)

PROSECUTION

v.
PRECISION MASONRY BUILDERS
INC., a California corporation,
Defendants.

22
23

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant Precision

24

Masonry Builders failed to make the requisite retirement benefit contributions under

25

the governing labor contract. (Compl. ¶1, ECF No. 1.) Despite being properly

26

served, Defendant has not filed an answer. (ECF No. 9.) On August 1, 2016, the

27

Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant Precision Masonry Builders at

28

1

Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 17.) However, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for

2

default judgment with the Court.

3

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no

4

later than October 31, 2016, why the Court should not dismiss this action without

5

prejudice for lack of prosecution. No hearing will be held. Failure to file a timely

6

written response to this Order will result in the dismissal of the action without

7

prejudice without further warning from the Court.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 17, 2016

11
12
13

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2