From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bailey v. Gold Coast Tire Co.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Apr 16, 2024
CV 23-10844-SPG-MAA (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2024)

Opinion

CV 23-10844-SPG-MAA

04-16-2024

Marquise Bailey v. Gold Coast Tire Co., Inc. et al


Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceeding: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER

Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion).

The below time period has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before April 30, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. This matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff's response. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action.

Defendants listed below have not answered the complaint, yet Plaintiff has failed to request entry of default, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Plaintiff can satisfy this order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint.

• Gold Coast Tire Co., Inc.
• Ivan Geovanny Loor

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bailey v. Gold Coast Tire Co.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Apr 16, 2024
CV 23-10844-SPG-MAA (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2024)
Case details for

Bailey v. Gold Coast Tire Co.

Case Details

Full title:Marquise Bailey v. Gold Coast Tire Co., Inc. et al

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Apr 16, 2024

Citations

CV 23-10844-SPG-MAA (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2024)