Hugo Esqueda v. Tacos El Gavilan, Inc et al
| Hugo Esqueda |
| Does and Tacos El Gavilan, Inc. |
| 2:2017cv02120 |
| March 16, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F. Eick |
| R. Gary Klausner |
| 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
10
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge R. Gary Klausner, 9 . On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution, requiring a response on or before June 19, 2017. As of today, no response to the OSC has been filed. Therefore, the Court orders the matter dismissed for lack of prosecution. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (pso)
|
|
Filing
9
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge R. Gary Klausner: In the present case, it appears that one or more of these time periods has not been met. Accordingly, the court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before June 19, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument. The Order To Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of plaintiffs response. (cr)
|
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.
