Roach v. Tate Publishing & Enterprises, LLC et al

Filing 59

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE OR FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2017. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Within ten ( 10) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written response to the Court, showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute or a motion for entry of default. The scheduling conferen ce currently set for June 20, 2017, is continued to September 14, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9. A joint scheduling report is due one week before the conference date. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Thorp, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRI HAYNES ROACH,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00917-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
EITHER SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE OR FILE
A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
AND CONTINUING SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

v.
TATE PUBLISHING & ENTERPRISES,
LLC, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16

(ECF No. 58)

17

TEN DAY DEADLINE

18
19

Plaintiff filed this action on June 15, 2015, against Defendants Tate Publishing &

20 Enterprises, LLC; Tate Music Group; and Richard Tate alleging copyright infringement. (ECF
21 No. 1.) On August 28, 2015, an order issued granting Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration
22 and this action was stayed.

(ECF No. 24.)

After Defendants’ failed to comply with the

23 arbitration requirements, the motion to stay was lifted. (ECF No. 51.) On April 19, 2017,
24 defense counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record was granted; and Defendants’ were
25 ordered to obtain new counsel for the entity defendants and file a responsive pleading by May
26 22, 2017. (ECF No. 58.) Defendants have not complied with or otherwise responded to the
27 April 19, 2017 order.
28

Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative

1

1 relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of
2 Civil Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P.
3 55(a). After entry of default, the plaintiff can seek entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.
4 55(b)(1) and (2). “Default judgments are generally disfavored, and whenever it is reasonably
5 possible, cases should be decided upon their merits.” In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, (9th Cir.
6 1991) (internal punctuation and citations omitted).
As of this date, no defendant has filed an answer or other pleading responsive to the

7

8 complaint, nor has Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
9 Procedure 55. The Court shall require Plaintiff to either show cause why this action should not
10 be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or a motion for entry of default.
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

13

written response to the Court, showing cause why this action should not be

14

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or a motion for entry of default;
2.

15

The scheduling conference currently set for June 20, 2017, is continued to

16

September 14, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9. A joint scheduling report is

17

due one week before the conference date; and
3.

18

Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result in this action being
dismissed for failure to prosecute.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated:

June 5, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2