Eleanor Payne v. Law Offices of Paul Stassinos et al
| Eleanor Payne |
| Law Offices of Paul Stassinos and Does |
| 2:2009cv06948 |
| September 24, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Turchin |
| Chapman |
| Other |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
21
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Percy Anderson. Plaintiff Eleanor Payne (Plaintiff) filed a complaint with this Court on September 24, 2009. On December 17, 2009, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding lack of prosecution in light of d efendant Law Offices of Paul Stassinos (Defendant) apparent failure respond to the complaint. In response, Plaintiff filed a request for the Clerk to enter default against Defendant on December 24, 2009. Default by the Clerk was entered on January 5, 2010. However, after further review, the Court issued an order on February 3, 2010, setting aside the default for Plaintiffs failure to properly serve Defendant. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to properly serve the summons and complaint on Defenda nt in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) or California law, no later than February 19, 2010. On February 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for extension of time to serve the complaint. The Court denied the application, citing its previous order of February 3, 2010, and requiring that Plaintiff properly serve Defendant and file a proof of service no later than February 19, 2010. As of April 30, 2010, Plaintiff still had not yet filed a proof of service. As such, the Court issued an order concerning Plaintiffs failure to comply with its February 3, 2010 Order. The Court ordered Plaintiff to properly serve the summons and complaint and file a proof of service no later than May 17, 2010. To date, however, Plaintiff stil l has not filed any response to the Courts Order and as a result of Plaintiffs failure to prosecute or respond to the Courts Orders, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); see also Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986-88; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. (Case Terminated. Made JS-6) (pp)
|
|
Filing
8
MINUTES of Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution by Judge Percy Anderson: Generally, defendants must answer the complaint within 21 days after service. In the present case, it appears that this time period has not been met. Accord ingly, the court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before 1/4/2010, 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 t his 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 may result in the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of the complaint. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
