Israel Baron v. Tetragon, Ltd. et al
| Israel Baron |
| Mehrdad Anifor, Does, Tetragon, Ltd. and Xtrmx, Ltd. |
| 2:2017cv08738 |
| December 4, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Gail J. Standish |
| 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
98
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Terry J. Hatter: Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the Court on December 4, 2017. On August 20, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff was to respond to the Courts Order to Show Cause no later than September 30, 2021. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not responded to the Courts Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb)
|
|
Filing
97
MINUTE IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. the court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 why this action should not be dism issed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will consider the filing of one of the 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: Proof(s) of service of summons and complaint on the defendant(s):An answer by the following defendant(s): In cases removed from State Court, responsive pleadings filed by all defendants; Plaintiff's app lication for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;Plaintiff's request that the clerk enter default judgment or plaintiff's noticed motion for entry of default judgment pursuant to Rule 55b of the Fed eral Rules of Civil Procedure. It is plaintiff's responsibility to respond promptly to all Orders and to prosecute the action diligently, including filing proofs of service and stipulations extending time to respond. See order for more details. (shb)
|
|
Filing
87
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr:, IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. The Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before DE CEMBER 10, 2020 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will consider the filing of an appropriate response to this Order To Show Cause, on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently. It is plaintiff's responsibility to respond promptly to all Orders and to prosecute the action diligently, including filing proofs of service and stipulations extending time to respond. If necessary, plaintiff(s) must also pursue R ule 55 remedies promptly upon the default of any defendant. All stipulations affecting the progress of the case must be approved by this Court. (Local Rules 7-1 and 7-2). 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. This action will be dismissed if the above mentioned documents are not filed by the date indicated above. (shb)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 2/1/2018. (ec)
|
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.
