Juan Briseno v. Tacos San Pedro Inc et al

Filing 9

IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Co urt, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing no later than May 5, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: Proof of service of the Summons and Complaint/Petition (electronically filed) reflecting timely service of defendant/s OR appro priate request for dismissal of this action. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or on the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Failure to respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions including dismissal of this action. (jre)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:17-cv-00619-RSWL-AGR Title Juan Briseno v. Tacos San Pedro, Inc., et al. Present: The Honorable Date April 26, 2017 RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior U.S. District Judge Joseph Remigio None n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION This Order is issued pursuant to FRCP 4(m), which requires that plaintiff(s) serve the summons and complaint (petition) upon all defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The Court may dismiss the action if plaintiff(s) has/have not diligently prosecuted the action. It is the responsibility of plaintiff to respond promptly to all Orders and to prosecute the action diligently, including filing proofs of service and stipulations extending time to respond. If necessary, plaintiff(s) must also pursue Rule 55 remedies promptly upon default of any defendant. All stipulations affecting the progress of the case must be approved by the Court, Local Rule 7-1. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing no later than May 5, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently. • Proof of service of the Summons and Complaint/Petition (electronically filed) reflecting timely service of defendant/s OR appropriate request for dismissal of this action. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or on the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Failure to respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions including dismissal of this action. : Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL 00 JRE Page 1 of 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?