Evervictory Electronic (B.V.I.) Co., Ltd. v. Topocean Consolidation Service (Los Angeles) Inc. et al
| Evervictory Electronic (B.V.I.) Co., Ltd. |
| Does and Topocean Consolidation Service (Los Angeles) Inc. |
| Audiovox Corporation, IDB Enterprises, Inc., Invision Automotive Systems, Inc., Invision Industries, Inc. and Roes |
| Topocean Consolidation Service (Los Angeles) Inc. |
| 2:2010cv03878 |
| May 24, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Paul L. Abrams |
| Christina A. Snyder |
| Contract: Marine |
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
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF show cause in writing not later than 11/12/2010 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to third-part y defendant INVISION INDUSTRIES, INC., only. oral argument shall not be heard in the above matter unless so ordered by the Court. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of briefs. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will conside r the following: An answer by third-party defendant INVISION INDUSTRIES, INC., or plaintiff's request for entry of default on this third-party defendant on or before the above date, as a satisfactory response to the Order to Show Cause. Court Reporter: Not Present. (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.
