Jose Martinez v. Biopharma Research LP et al
| Jose Martinez |
| Biopharma Research LP, Does, Jong Youn Lee and Project Rehabilitation LLC |
| 2:2015cv00304 |
| January 15, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dolly M. Gee |
| Stephen J. Hillman |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
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
24
(IN CHAMBERS) AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court, having read and reviewed Plaintiffs proof of service and declaration [Doc. ## 22, 23], hereby amends the order to show cause issued on May 18, 2015 [Doc. # 21] as follow: The Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s)to show cause writing on or before in 6/11/2015 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to defendant Project Rehabilitation, LLC. As an a lternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will consider the filing of one ofthe following, as an appropriate response to this Order To Show Cause, on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: An answer by the following defendant(s): Project Rehabilitation, LLC; Plaintiff's application for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv)
|
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.
