From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fernandez v. Tel. Rd. Holdings

United States District Court, Central District of California
May 6, 2022
CV 22-1964-DMG (MARx) (C.D. Cal. May. 6, 2022)

Opinion

CV 22-1964-DMG (MARx)

05-06-2022

Antonio Fernandez v. Telegraph Road Holdings, LLC, et al.


Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

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. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Generally, defendant must answer the complaint within 21 days after service (60 days if the defendant is the United States).

In the present case, it appears that one or more of these time periods has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before May 13, 2022 why this action should not be dismissed as to defendant Pleasure Liquor, Inc. for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this Order To Show Cause, on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently:

_X_ An answer by the following defendant(s): Pleasure Liquor, Inc.;
_X_ Plaintiff's application for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

It is plaintiff's responsibility to respond promptly to all Orders and to prosecute the action diligently, including filing proofs of service and stipulations extending time to respond. If necessary, plaintiff(s) must also pursue Rule 55 remedies promptly upon the default of any defendant. All stipulations affecting the progress of the case must be approved by this Court. (Local Rules 7-1 and 7-2.)

No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. This action will be dismissed as to defendant Pleasure Liquor, Inc. if the abovementioned document(s) are not filed by the date indicated above.


Summaries of

Fernandez v. Tel. Rd. Holdings

United States District Court, Central District of California
May 6, 2022
CV 22-1964-DMG (MARx) (C.D. Cal. May. 6, 2022)
Case details for

Fernandez v. Tel. Rd. Holdings

Case Details

Full title:Antonio Fernandez v. Telegraph Road Holdings, LLC, et al.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: May 6, 2022

Citations

CV 22-1964-DMG (MARx) (C.D. Cal. May. 6, 2022)