Juan Briseno v. Tacos San Pedro Inc et al
| Juan Briseno |
| Does and Tacos San Pedro Inc |
| 2:2017cv00619 |
| January 25, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Ronald S.W. Lew |
| Alicia G. Rosenberg |
| 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
21
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASESHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 8/25/2017. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prose cuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing no later than August 25, 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: PLAINTIFFS FILING OF A MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; orREQUEST FOR DISMISS AL. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered 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 th is order may result in sanctions and/or the dismissal of this action. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order upon all defendants who have been served with the Summons and Complaint but have yet to appear in this action. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. (jre)
|
|
Filing
17
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 27, 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 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/Response to the Complaint/Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default on defendant/s OR appropriat e 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 plai ntiff/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
15
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 20, 2017, by noon (12:00 pm) why this action should not be dismissed 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/Petition (electronically filed) reflecting timely service of defe ndant/s OR appropriate request for dismissal of this action. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. Failure to respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions including immediate dismissal of this action. (jre)
|
|
Filing
9
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 Co urt, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing no later than May 5, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed 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/Petition (electronically filed) reflecting timely service of defendant/s OR appro priate 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 on the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Failure to respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions including dismissal of this action. (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.
