Torres v. La Favorita Broadcasting, Inc., et al.

Filing 24

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE why this Action Should not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 0108/2018. Five-Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-00888-LJO-SAB

RICARDO TORRES,

LA FAVORITA BROADCASTING, INC. et
al.,

FIVE DAY DEADLINE

15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Ricardo Torres filed this action against Defendants La Favorita Broadcasting,
Inc.; La Favorita Radio Network, Inc.; Kafy, Inc.; KBYN, Inc.; KCFA, Inc.; KNTO, Inc.; Nelson
F. Gomez; and Debbie L. Gomez on July 6, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On this same date, summonses
for the defendants and new civil case documents issued. (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4.) On October 13,
2017, order issued requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
failure to serve the defendants in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (ECF No. 6.) On October 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show
cause.

(ECF No. 16.)

On this same date Plaintiff returned the proofs of service on the

summonses. (ECF Nos. 8-15.) On October 18, 2017, an order issued discharging the order to
show cause and finding good cause to extend the service deadline. (ECF No. 17.)
On December 11, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation extending the time for the

28

1

1 defendants to respond to the complaint by one week making the defendants’ answer due on
2 December 15, 2017.

(ECF No. 20.)

On December 15, 2017, the parties filed a second

3 stipulation extending time for the defendants to respond to the complaint. (ECF No. 22.) On
4 December 15, 2017, Defendants were ordered to respond to the complaint on or before
5 December 29, 2017. (ECF No. 23.)
Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint in compliance with the December

6

7 15, 2017 order, and Plaintiff has not moved for entry of default. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
8 ORDERED that within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause
9 in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:

January 8, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2