Opinion
CV 24-4055 PA (SSCx)
08-27-2024
Pavilion LLC v. Pegpack, LLC, et al.
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal For Lack Of Prosecution
On August 13, 2024, the Court issued an order requiring plaintiff Pavillon LLC (“Plaintiff”) to re-file its request for the Clerk to enter defendant Nikita Baranovsky's (“Baranovsky”) default no later than August 26, 2024. (Docket No. 31 (“Order”).) On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a combined Response to Court's Order and Request for an extension of the August 26, 2024 deadline. (Docket No. 32.) Plaintiff explains that it has been in contact with Baranovsky and that the parties are “near reaching a settlement but need a few additional days to determine whether the settlement can be finalized.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests an extension until September 5, 2024, to file either a renewed request for entry of default or a stipulation of dismissal and settlement. (Id.)
Plaintiff's filing is procedurally improper and therefore insufficient. There are no “Requests” contemplated by the Local Rules. Instead Local Rule 6.1 states, in relevant part:
Unless otherwise provided by rule or order of the Court, no oral motions will be recognized and every motion shall be presented by a written notice of motion. The notice of motion shall be filed with the Clerk not later than twenty-eight (28) days before the date set for hearing, and shall be served on each of the parties electronically or, if excepted from electronic filing, either by deposit in the mail or by personal service. If mailed, the notice of motion shall be served not later than thirty-one (31) days before the Motion Day designated in the notice. If served personally, or electronically, the notice of motion shall be served not later than twenty-eight (28) days before the Motion Day designated in the notice.
In addition to the filing of a noticed motion in compliance with the applicable Local Rules, a party may seek relief through the filing of an Ex Parte Application pursuant to Local Rule 7-19 and the Court's orders. Plaintiff's “Request,” included in its Response to the Court's Order, does not comply with the requirements for Ex Parte Applications or noticed motions. Plaintiff may not evade the requirements for noticed motions and Ex Parte Applications simply by labeling a filing as a “Request.” Any future “Requests” filed by Plaintiff will be summarily denied.
Nevertheless, the Court will extend its August 26, 2024, deadline to allow the parties an opportunity to continue settlement negotiations. Plaintiff shall file either a renewed request for entry of default against Baranovsky or a stipulation of dismissal no later than September 5, 2024. Failure to comply with this Order will, without further warning, result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Baranovsky without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.