Lisa Misraje Bentley v. James Randall Argue et al
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:For the final time, the Court ORDERS Bentley to SHOW CAUSE by Friday, January 17, 2014, why the Court should not dismiss her case for lack of prosecution. No hearing will be held . The Court will discharge this Order only upon the filing of valid proofs of service on the remaining defendants and applications for entry of default with the Clerk where appropriate or a notice of voluntary dismissal. Failure to timely respond will result in dismissal of Bentleys case. (lc). Modified on 1/14/2014. (lc).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LISA MISRAJE BENTLEY,
Case No. 5:13-cv-00950-ODW(OPx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.
LACK OF PROSECUTION
JAMES RANDALL ARGUE; DAVID
BRADSHAW; RALPH LINHARDT;
MICHAEL H. RAMSEY; JACK ONG;
JOHN DAVID WARE; DOES 1–10,
Ever since Plaintiff Lisa Misraje Bentley filed suit against Defendants on May
23, 2013, this case has been marked by one Order to Show Cause after another. Now
with the one-year anniversary of this case’s inception in sight, Bentley still has not
served all Defendants and no Defendant has answered. Mired in service issues and
failed settlements, Bentley does not request—but rather states—that she will move for
entry of default against Defendants if the parties cannot finalize a settlement within 30
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states that a court “must” dismiss a case if
a plaintiff does not serve a defendant within 120 days unless the plaintiff can show
good cause for the delay. The Court has granted Bentley four extensions to its Orders
to Show Cause, yet Misraje still has not served Defendants Jack Ong or David
Bradshaw and the other Defendants have not answered or otherwise responded. The
Court understands that Bentley has encountered various obstacles in prosecuting her
case when attempting to serve Defendants and work out an early settlement. But the
Court’s repeated continuances have proved futile. This case has progressed no further
despite the eight months Bentley has had to simply serve Defendants. If Bentley is
unable to effect service or work out a settlement with Defendants, she is fully entitled
to dismiss her case without prejudice and refile at a later time when she is ready to
move forward. And neither can Bentley simply move for entry of default with the
Clerk, as she has not yet served Ong or Bradshaw.
For the final time, the Court ORDERS Bentley to SHOW CAUSE by Friday,
January 17, 2014, why the Court should not dismiss her case for lack of prosecution.
No hearing will be held. The Court will discharge this Order only upon the filing of
valid proofs of service on the remaining defendants and applications for entry of
default with the Clerk where appropriate or a notice of voluntary dismissal. Failure to
timely respond will result in dismissal of Bentley’s case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 14, 2014
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?