Francisco Monarez et al v. Eduardo Villela et al

Filing 20

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/3/2024. (twdb)

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

EDCV 24-1279 JGB (DTBx)

Date August 27, 2024

Title Francisco Monarez, et al. v. Eduardo Villela, et al.

Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute
(IN CHAMBERS)

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs Francisco Monarez, Banda Vallarta Show, and Pablo Mejia
Perez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Eduardo Villela, Juan
Preciado, and Silverio Martines (collectively, “Defendants”). (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) The
Complaint alleges eight causes of action: (1) federal service mark infringement; (2) federal unfair
competition; (3) federal false designation of origin; (4) federal copyright infringement; (5) state
trade name infringement; (6) state service mark dilution; (7) state unfair competition; and (8)
common law service mark infringement. (See id.)
On July 21, 2024, Defendant Juan Preciado was served with the summons and Complaint.
(“Preciado Proof of Service,” Dkt. No. 19.) As such, Defendant Preciado’s answer was due on
August 11, 2024. See Fed R. Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1). To date, Defendant Preciado has not filed an
answer or response to the Complaint. Plaintiffs have also not filed a request for entry of default
as to Defendant Preciado.
Absent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the
summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). Generally, defendants must answer the complaint within 21 days after
service (60 days if the defendant is the United States). Fed R. Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1).

Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss
actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute her case
with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,
542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, it appears that Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute the
case with reasonable diligence because they have failed to request an entry of default as to
Defendant Preciado for nearly two weeks.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs, on or before Sepember 3, 2024, to request
an entry of default as to Defendant Preciado or to show cause in writing as to why they have not
requested an entry of default. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the
action. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this
matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG