From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Patel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 27, 2012
No. CIV S-11-2925 KJM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-2925 KJM-DAD

07-27-2012

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SURENDRA F. PATEL.; et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Defendant Surendra F. Patel was dismissed from the above-captioned matter on December 21, 2011 and the clerk of the court entered default against the remaining defendant, Shobhana S. Patel, on February 28, 2012. Plaintiff has taken no action in this matter since filing a status report on May 9, 2012, in which he indicated he would seek default judgment by July 18, 2012.

Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order, why the above-captioned matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991); Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Johnson v. Patel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 27, 2012
No. CIV S-11-2925 KJM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2012)
Case details for

Johnson v. Patel

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT N. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SURENDRA F. PATEL.; et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 27, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-11-2925 KJM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2012)