C & SM Int'l et al v. Touch Me Fashion Inc. et al
| C and SM Intl |
| Closet Signature Fashion Valley Mall, Does, Pretty Girl, Inc. and Touch Me Fashion, Inc. |
| 2:2016cv08329 |
| November 8, 2016 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
| Ronald S.W. Lew |
| Rozella A. Oliver |
| Copyright |
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
30
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 March 3, 2017, 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: Defendant/s' Answer/Response to the Complaint/Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default on defendant/s OR appropriate request for dismissal of this action. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will standsubmitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which aresponse by plaintiff/ s is due. Plaintiff is to serve notice of this Order on all named parties in this action who have been served but have not yet appeared. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS INCLUDING THE DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION. (jre)
|
|
Filing
20
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 2/17/2017.The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely pr osecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff/s to show cause in writing no later than February 17, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a writ ten 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/s' Answer/Response to the Complaint/Plaintiff's Req uest for Entry of Default on defendant/s OR appropriate request for dismissal of this action. 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 named parties in this action who have been served but have not yet appeared. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. (jre)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
