Daneil Lopez v. Liquor 1940, Inc et al

Filing 16

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge R. Gary Klausner. On June 8, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution ("OSC") 11 . On June 12, 2018, plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlemen t and Request to Vacate all Currently Set Dates 12 . The Court denied the Request on June 13, 2018, informing the parties that they were not relieved of any deadlines or court appearances until a dismissal of the action was filed 13 . On June 13, 2018 plaintiff filed a response to the OSC, requesting that defendant's deadline to respond to the complaint be extended by 60 days 14 . On June 14, 2018, the request to extend the responsive deadline was denied by the Court and the parties were again informed that they were not relieved of any deadlines or court appearances until a dismissal of the action was filed 15 . As of today's date, defendant has not filed a responsive document and plaintiff has not requested default by the Clerk, therefore, the matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice, for lack of prosecution. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (pso)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
DANEIL LOPEZ,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
LIQUOR 1940, INC., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:18-cv-02577-RGK-FFM
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
LACK OF PROSECUTION

16
17

On June 8, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of

18

Prosecution (“OSC”) [11]. On June 12, 2018, plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement and Request

19

to Vacate all Currently Set Dates [12]. The Court denied the Request on June 13, 2018,

20

informing the parties that they were not relieved of any deadlines or court appearances until a

21

dismissal of the action was filed [13]. On June 13, 2018 plaintiff filed a response to the OSC,

22

requesting that defendant’s deadline to respond to the complaint be extended by 60 days [14].

23

On June 14, 2018, the request to extend the responsive deadline was denied by the Court and the

24

parties were again informed that they were not relieved of any deadlines or court appearances

25

until a dismissal of the action was filed [15].

26
27
28

1

As of today’s date, defendant has not filed a responsive document and plaintiff has not

2

requested default by the Clerk, therefore, the matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice, for

3

lack of prosecution.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated: June 20, 2018
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE