Darryl Howard v. AMCO Insurance Company et al
| Darryl Howard |
| AMCO Insurance Company and DOES |
| 8:2008cv00175 |
| February 14, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Southern Division - Santa Ana Office |
| Orange |
| Cormac J. Carney |
| Marc L. Goldman |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Insurance Contract |
| None |
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
16
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION held before Judge Cormac J. Carney: The Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution to plaintiff on October 23, 2008. The Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution is continued, in writing, to March 27, 2009. (see document for further details) (mu)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Cormac J. Carney: The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiffs counsel, to show cause in writing no later than November 7, 2008 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: Joint Rule 26(f) Report (FRCivP 26), Stipulation and Order to Dismiss. (see document for further details) (mu)
|
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.
