Sunwize Technologies Inc v. Living Ecology Inc et al

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Otis D Wright, II:Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As to Defendants Living Ecology, Inc., Organic Food Bar, Inc., and Sagar Enterprises, LLC, the parties ha ve requested a stay of this case until the completion of settlement payments, which will be spread over the next 17 months.(ECF No. 12.) And as to the remaining Defendants (other than U.S. Small BusinessAdministration), none of them have appeared. Wi th respect to staying the case, the Court finds no reason to do so. If the settlement agreement among the parties is breached, the parties may return to this Court for enforcement. Other than for purposes of enforcing the settlement agreement, Plaintiff must show in writing why this case should not be otherwise dismissed. No hearing is scheduled. Plaintiffs response is due by September 24, 2012. Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this case. (lc)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SUNWIZE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

8
9
10
11

v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-cv-225-ODW(SPx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

LIVING ECOLOGY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for

13

lack of prosecution. As to Defendants Living Ecology, Inc., Organic Food Bar, Inc.,

14

and Sagar Enterprises, LLC, the parties have requested a stay of this case until the

15

completion of settlement payments, which will be spread over the next 17 months.

16

(ECF No. 12.) And as to the remaining Defendants (other than U.S. Small Business

17

Administration), none of them have appeared.

18

With respect to staying the case, the Court finds no reason to do so. If the

19

settlement agreement among the parties is breached, the parties may return to this

20

Court for enforcement.

21

agreement, Plaintiff must show in writing why this case should not be otherwise

22

dismissed. No hearing is scheduled. Plaintiff’s response is due by September 24,

23

2012. Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this case.

Other than for purposes of enforcing the settlement

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

September 13, 2012

26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE