From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richter v. KRG Trading, Inc.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jul 2, 2024
CV 24-3622-MWF(SKx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2024)

Opinion

CV 24-3622-MWF(SKx)

07-02-2024

Jack Richter v. KRG Trading, Inc., et al. No


Present: The Honorable: MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

A review of the docket in this action reflects that the Complaint was filed on May 1, 2024. (Docket No. 1). Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(m), the time to serve the Complaint will expire on July 30, 2024.

The Court notes that the following proofs of service have been filed:

Defendant Z&Q International Trading Co., Ltd. (Docket No. 26)
• Substituted service on May 8, 2024 (date of mailing).
• Response to Complaint was due June 10, 2024.
Defendant Zhengxin Zhou (Docket No. 27)
• Substituted service on May 8, 2024 (date of mailing).
• Response to Complaint was due June 10, 2024.
Defendant KRG Trading Inc. (Docket No. 36)
• Substituted service on May 17, 2024 (date of mailing).
• Response to Complaint was due June 17, 2024.
Defendant Kai-Jhen Huang (Docket No. 37)
• Substituted service on May 17, 2024 (date of mailing).
• Response to Complaint was due June 17, 2024

There are no proofs of service on file for Defendants Dlab Max Limited, Jiexin Lin, Wealth USA, Inc., and AE Pay, Inc.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to this Order to Show Cause, the Court will accept the following no later than JULY 30, 2024.

■ By Plaintiff: Proofs of Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendants Dlab Max Limited, Jiexin Lin, Wealth USA, Inc., and AE Pay, Inc.
AND/OR
■ By Defendants (previously served or to be served): Responses to the Complaint. The parties may also file appropriate stipulations to extend the time within which Defendants must respond to the Complaint.
OR
■ By Plaintiff: Applications for Clerk to Enter Default as to any Defendant who has not timely responded to the Complaint within ten (10) days of the date that response is or was due.

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 by JULY 30, 2024 will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Richter v. KRG Trading, Inc.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jul 2, 2024
CV 24-3622-MWF(SKx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2024)
Case details for

Richter v. KRG Trading, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Jack Richter v. KRG Trading, Inc., et al. No

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Jul 2, 2024

Citations

CV 24-3622-MWF(SKx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2024)