Opinion
For Insight Investments LLC, Plaintiff: Alexander J Larro, LEAD ATTORNEY, Steven J Olson, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
For Norris Technologies LLC, Defendant: Daniel J Enowitz, Marcus Watanabe Snyder and Dave, Los Angeles, CA.
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiff, to show cause in writing no later than, July 30, 2015, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiffs, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date:
X Plaintiff filing a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (FRCivP 55(b)) against defendant Wholesale Warehouse
Absent a showing of good cause, an action shall be dismissed if the summons and complaint have not been served upon all defendants within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). The Court may dismiss the entire action prior to the expiration of such time, however, if plaintiff has not diligently prosecuted the action.
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, plaintiffs 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 the Court. Local Rule 7-1.
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 plaintiffs is due.