Lisa Misraje Bentley v. James Randall Argue et al

Filing 31

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).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LISA MISRAJE BENTLEY,

12

v.

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

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,
inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18

Ever since Plaintiff Lisa Misraje Bentley filed suit against Defendants on May

19

23, 2013, this case has been marked by one Order to Show Cause after another. Now

20

with the one-year anniversary of this case’s inception in sight, Bentley still has not

21

served all Defendants and no Defendant has answered. Mired in service issues and

22

failed settlements, Bentley does not request—but rather states—that she will move for

23

entry of default against Defendants if the parties cannot finalize a settlement within 30

24

days.

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states that a court “must” dismiss a case if

26

a plaintiff does not serve a defendant within 120 days unless the plaintiff can show

27

good cause for the delay. The Court has granted Bentley four extensions to its Orders

28

to Show Cause, yet Misraje still has not served Defendants Jack Ong or David

1

Bradshaw and the other Defendants have not answered or otherwise responded. The

2

Court understands that Bentley has encountered various obstacles in prosecuting her

3

case when attempting to serve Defendants and work out an early settlement. But the

4

Court’s repeated continuances have proved futile. This case has progressed no further

5

despite the eight months Bentley has had to simply serve Defendants. If Bentley is

6

unable to effect service or work out a settlement with Defendants, she is fully entitled

7

to dismiss her case without prejudice and refile at a later time when she is ready to

8

move forward. And neither can Bentley simply move for entry of default with the

9

Clerk, as she has not yet served Ong or Bradshaw.

10

For the final time, the Court ORDERS Bentley to SHOW CAUSE by Friday,

11

January 17, 2014, why the Court should not dismiss her case for lack of prosecution.

12

No hearing will be held. The Court will discharge this Order only upon the filing of

13

valid proofs of service on the remaining defendants and applications for entry of

14

default with the Clerk where appropriate or a notice of voluntary dismissal. Failure to

15

timely respond will result in dismissal of Bentley’s case.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

January 14, 2014

19
20
21

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2