Misael Romero v. Kil Boo Bark et al
| Misael Romero |
| Kil Boo Bark, Barks Acupuncture and Does |
| 5:2017cv01241 |
| June 22, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Andre Birotte |
| Karen L. Stevenson |
| 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
12
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Plaintiff(s) are ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed, for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S . 626 (1962) (Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion). The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before August 10, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed for lac k 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 Plaintiff(s) respo nse. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. Defendant(s) Kil Boo Bark; and Barks Acupuncture did not answer the complaint, yet Plaintiff(s) have failed to request entry of default, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Plaintiff(s) can satisfy this order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. (clee)
|
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.
