Lindsay v. Teach

Full title: Shirley Lindsay v. James M. Teach et al

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Apr 8, 2015

CV 15-01409-AB (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2015)

Opinion

Shirley Lindsay v. James M. Teach et al No. CV 15-01409-AB (FFMx) United States District Court, C.D. California April 8, 2015

          Proceedings: [In Chambers] Order To Show Cause Regarding Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution

          Honorable ANDRé BIROTTE JR.

         Plaintiff(s) are ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed, for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion).

         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 April 15, 2015, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 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. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action.

Defendant(s) Sheri L. Hoekman Teach did not answer the complaint, yet Plaintiff(s) have failed to request entry of default, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Plaintiff(s) can satisfy this order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.