Chung Kuo Insurance Co Ltd et al v. M/V CS Soraya et al
| Chung Kuo Insurance Co Ltd and SB International Inc. |
| M/V CS Soraya, Does, Campbell Shipping Company Limited, Allegro Shipping Agency Corporation and Soraya Shipping Company Limited |
| 2:2013cv08072 |
| October 31, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Ronald S.W. Lew |
| Margaret A. Nagle |
| 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
18
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 August 12, 2014, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 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: PLAINTIFF'S FILING OF A MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless or dered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a response or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Failure to timely respond to this order may result in sanctions and/or the dismissal of this action. (jre)
|
|
Filing
12
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 June 24, 2014, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept on e of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: Defendant/s Answer/s to the Complaint or Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default on defendant/s. 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
5
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 April 8, 2014, why this action should not be dismissed as to all defendants for lack of prosecution. 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: Proof of service of the Summons and Complaint on all 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 on the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. (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.
