From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chaney v. Motion Repossessors, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 3, 2015
CV 15-2682-MWF(MRPx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2015)

Opinion

          For Maria Chaney, Plaintiff: Alexander B Trueblood, Trueblood Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA.


          PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

          HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than July 2, 2015, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

         The Court will consider the filing of the following on or before the above date as an appropriate response to this Order to Show Cause: Answer by the defendant or an application for entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).

         No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the dismissal of this action .

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Chaney v. Motion Repossessors, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 3, 2015
CV 15-2682-MWF(MRPx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2015)
Case details for

Chaney v. Motion Repossessors, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Maria Chaney v. Motion Repossessors, Inc., et al

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Jun 3, 2015

Citations

CV 15-2682-MWF(MRPx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2015)