UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 18-6035 DMG (SKx) Date February 5, 2020

Title Pro-Com Products, Inc. v. Kings Express LA, Inc., et al. Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT CONSTRUE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT INFINITY LOGISTICS, INC. AS A MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Pro-Com Products, Inc. filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) against Defendants King’s Express, a Minnesota Corporation, and Infinity Logistics, Inc. [Doc. # 112] on January 10, 2020. Both Defendants filed their Opposition to the MSJ on January 23, 2020. [Doc. # 113.] The Clerk, however, has entered a default against Infinity [Doc. # 108], and Plaintiff maintains that Infinity is a suspended corporation that may not participate in litigation.1 See Pl.’s Response to Defs.’ Objs. at 1-2 [Doc. # 116-3]; Ord. re Pls.’ Mot. to Strike at 1-2 (describing the consequences of being a suspended corporation) [Doc. # 79]. Both the default and Infinity’s suspended status (if it is indeed suspended) would prevent it from opposing the MSJ.

Defendant Infinity is therefore ordered to show cause why the Court should not construe Plaintiff’s MSJ against Infinity as a motion for default judgment and analyze the case’s facts relating to Infinity under the standard set forth in Eitel v. McCool,

(9th Cir. 1986). Defendants shall file a written response to this Order by Monday, February 10, 2020. Failure to submit a satisfactory response will result in the Court construing Plaintiff’s motion as an MSJ against King’s Express and as an MDJ against Infinity.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Neither side has submitted evidence showing whether Infinity is currently active or suspended.