Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America v. Network FOB Inc et al
| Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America |
| New Century Transport LLC, Network FOB Inc, LRC International LLC and Tuanix Transporation |
| 2:2013cv02851 |
| April 23, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Jay C. Gandhi |
| Ronald S.W. Lew |
| Other Statutory Actions |
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
29
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Cour t, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff (s) to show cause in writing no later than October 11, 2013, why this action should not be dismissed as to defendant New Century Transport, LLC for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written res ponse by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: PLAINTIFFS FILING OF A MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. (jre)
|
|
Filing
27
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Cou rt, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff (s) to show cause in writing no later than October 8, 2013, why this action should not be dismissed as to defendant LRC International, LLC for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written respons e by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: PLAINTIFFS FILING OF A MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTJUDGMENT. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
|
Filing
21
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/9/2013. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely pr osecuted, as reflected below. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: Defendant New Century Transport, LLC AND Defendant LRC International, LLCs Answers to Complaint or Plaintiffs Request for Entry of Default on defendants. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due.Plaintiff is to serve notice of this Order on all remaining named parties in this action, if any. (jre)
|
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.
