Yue Wang v. Monterey Park Police Park Department et al

Filing 19

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha:Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing by May 29, 2024, why the court should not dismiss Peter Palomino, Connor Crabtree, and Cang Sou from this action for lack of prosecution, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and why the court should not dismiss the City from this action given Plaintiff's failure to oppose the City's MTD. Plaintiffs filing of an opposition to the MTD shall be deemed a sufficient response as to the City. (SEE FOOTNOTE 1: If Plaintiff files an opposition to the Motion, the City is authorized to file a reply by June 5, 2024.). Plaintiff's failure to respond may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

YUE WANG,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 2:24-cv-02358-FLA (DFMx)

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

14
15
16

MONTEREY PARK POLICE PARK
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

1

On March 22, 2024, Defendant City of Monterey Park (“City”) removed this

2

action from the Los Angeles Superior Court. Dkt. 1. In its Notice of Removal, the

3

City stated on information and belief that Defendants Peter Palomino, Connor

4

Crabtree, and Cang Sou had not been served, id. ¶ 5; see also Dkt. 1-1 (Compl.), and

5

attached a document from the Los Angeles Superior Court that ordered Plaintiff to

6

appear for an Order to Show Cause Hearing for failure to file a proof of service, Dkt.

7

1-2. Additionally, Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service as to any of these

8

defendants. On March 29, 2024, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

9

(“MTD”). Dkt. 13. Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition. See Local Rule 7-9.
The court, therefore, ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing by May

10
11

29, 2024, why the court should not dismiss Peter Palomino, Connor Crabtree, and

12

Cang Sou from this action for lack of prosecution, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and why

13

the court should not dismiss the City from this action given Plaintiff’s failure to

14

oppose the City’s MTD. Plaintiff’s filing of an opposition to the MTD shall be

15

deemed a sufficient response as to the City.1 Plaintiff’s failure to respond may result

16

in dismissal of this action without further notice.

17
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: May 9, 2024

21

_______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If Plaintiff files an opposition to the Motion, the City is authorized to file a reply by
June 5, 2024.
2