Raul Uriarte-Limon v. 5060 Montclair Plaza Lane Owner, LLC et al

Filing 17

IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court , on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff/s to show cause in writing no later than September 23, 2016, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accep t one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: Defendant/s' Answer/Response to the Complaint or Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default on defendant/s. No ora l argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff/s is due. Plaintiff is to serve notice of this Order on all named parties in this action who have been served but have not yet appeared.Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. (jre)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 5:16-cv-01426-RSWL-MRW Title Raul Uriarte-Limon v. 5060 Montclair Plaza Lane Owner, LLC, et al. Present: The Honorable Date September 21, 2016 RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior U.S. District Judge Joseph Remigio n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION It is the responsibility of plaintiff to respond promptly to all Orders and to prosecute the action diligently, including filing proofs of service and stipulations extending time to respond. If necessary, plaintiff/s must also pursue Rule 55 remedies promptly upon default of any defendant. All stipulations affecting the progress of the case must be approved by the Court, Local Rule 7-1. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff /s to show cause in writing no later than September 23, 2016, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently. • Defendant/s’ Answer/Response to the Complaint or Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default on defendant/s. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff/s is due. Plaintiff is to serve notice of this Order on all named parties in this action who have been served but have not yet appeared. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. : Initials of Preparer CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL 00 JRE Page 1 of 1

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?