From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Plouviez v. Duel

United States District Court, Central District of California
Mar 22, 2022
2:21-cv-08934-RGK-JCx (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-08934-RGK-JCx

03-22-2022

Lucas Cyril Plouviez v. David Duel, et al.


Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, 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. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 4(m). Generally, defendants must answer the complaint within 21 days after service (60 days if the defendant is the United States). Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(a)(1).

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 March 29, 2022 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to certain defendants.

Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument. The Order To Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of plaintiff's response.

If plaintiff files:

x Proof of TIMELY service of Summons on Original Complaint as to: Jennfier Getz 351 SB Two LLC Joseph Miskabi Law Offices of Joseph Miskabi

x Proof of TIMELY service of Summons on First Amended Complaint as to: Urban Blox Criminal Enterprise Surf Realty Corporation Central Realty Advisors, Inc. Jennfier Getz Joseph Miskabi Law Offices of Joseph Miskabi Kathy Cook

x A TIMELY answer by the following defendant(s):

(Answer to First Amended Complaint was due March 21, 2022)

David Duel

Rebecca Duel

Ilana Yamtoobian

Raffi Shirinian

Urban Blox, LLC

S. Bonita One, LLC

Iy Ek Partners, LLC

27 Ozone, LLC

Urban Developer, LLC

Nourafshan Venice Properties, LLC

David Nourafshan

RIF Investments-2 LLC

Forward Management Long Beach, Inc.

Richard Daggenhurst

Felman, Daggenhurst and El Dabe

Daggenhurst Law, PC

Thornton Property One, LLC

351 SB Two LLC

-or

x Plaintiff's application for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to defendant(s):

(Answer to First Amended Complaint was due March 21, 2022) David Duel Rebecca Duel Ilana Yamtoobian Raffi Shirinian Urban Blox, LLC S. Bonita One, LLC Iy Ek Partners, LLC 27 Ozone, LLC Urban Developer, LLC Nourafshan Venice Properties, LLC David Nourafshan RIF Investments-2 LLC

Forward Management Long Beach, Inc. (NO CIP compliance) Richard Daggenhurst Felman, Daggenhurst and El Dabe Daggenhurst Law, PC Thornton Property One, LLC 351 SB Two LLC

[] Plaintiff's motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to defendant(s):

on or before the date indicated above, the court will consider this a satisfactory response to the Order To Show Cause. If a satisfactory response is not filed by the date listed above, the matter will be dismissed for lack of prosecution.


Summaries of

Plouviez v. Duel

United States District Court, Central District of California
Mar 22, 2022
2:21-cv-08934-RGK-JCx (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022)
Case details for

Plouviez v. Duel

Case Details

Full title:Lucas Cyril Plouviez v. David Duel, et al.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Mar 22, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-08934-RGK-JCx (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022)