Silva v. Carruthers et al

Filing 18

ORDER: To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a written response to the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 7/7/2012. (mdc)

~

1

FILt.D

2

'2 JUL -9

3

"~.:

.~ l

4

.1

2~

,.­

i .

(VitR

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARUSSIA SILVA~

CASE NO. 1 Icv1365 WQH (WVG)
ORDER

14

Plaintiff,
vs.
REGENT ASSET MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS, INC.; IMPERIAL
RECOVERY PARTNERS, LLC; DOES 1
to 25,

15

Defendants.

11

12
13

16
17
18

HAYES, Judge:
On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint. l (ECF No.1).
On October

3~

2011, the summons was returned executed on behalf of Defendants Regent

19 Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. On November 4,
20

2011, the.Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants Regent Asset Management

21

Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. Since November 4, 2011, the docket

22

reflects that no action has been taken by either party in this case with regards to Defendants

23

Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC.

24
25

On June 4,2012, this court issued an Order stating:
Pursuant to Local Rule 41.1, "[a]ctions or proceedings which
have been pending in this court for more than six months, without any

26
27
28

1 Plaintiff asserted claims against Defendants Regent Asset Management Solutions~ Inc,
Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC, Dennis Scott Carruthers, and Dennis Scott Carruthers,
Attorneys at law. On February 8, 2012, Dennis Scott Carruthers and Dennis Scott Carruthers,
Attorneys at law were dismissed with prejudice from this action.

- 1-

llcv1365-WQH-WVG

1

2

3
4
5

6

proceeding or discovery having been taken therein during such period,
may, after notice, be dIsmissed by the court for want of prosecution."
S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 41.1; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It
appearing to the Court that dismissal for want of prosecution may be
appropriate in this case, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW
CAUSE as to why this case should not be dIsmissed without prejudice
for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiffshall file a written response to this ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE on or before July 5, 2012. If Plaintiff does not respond, the
Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.

7 (ECF No. 17 at 1-2).

8

To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a written response to the ORDER TO SHOW

9 II CAUSE. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11

1211 Dated:

z6dZ­

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

llcv1365-WQH-WVG