Broadcast Music, Inc. et al v. Wrightwood Inn, Inc.

Filing 9

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 Cour t, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing no later than May 25, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of t he following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: Proof of service of the Summons and Complaint/Petition (electronically filed) reflecting timely service of defendant/s; OR appropri ate request for dismissal of this action. 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 on the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Failure to respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions including dismissal of this action. (jre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

5:17-cv-00242-RSWL-DTB

Title

Broadcast Music, Inc. et al v. Wrightwood Inn, Inc.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 19, 2017

RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior U.S. District Judge

Joseph Remigio

None

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

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

This Order is issued pursuant to FRCP 4(m), which requires that plaintiff(s) serve the summons
and complaint (petition) upon all defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The Court may
dismiss the action if plaintiff(s) has/have not diligently prosecuted the action.
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 May 25, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed 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.
•

Proof of service of the Summons and Complaint/Petition (electronically filed)
reflecting timely service of defendant/s OR appropriate request for dismissal of this
action.

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 on the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is
due. Failure to respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions including dismissal of this
action.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

00

JRE

Page 1 of 1