210 Brands Incorporated v. Canterbury of New Zealand Limited

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

210 BRANDS INCORPORATED, a Case No. 2:20-cv-06853-JWH-ASx Nevada corporation,

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

REGARDING DISMISSAL FOR v. LACK OF PROSECUTION

CANTERBURY OF NEW ZEALAND

LIMITED, an English corporation, and PENTLAND GROUP LIMITED, an English corporation,

Defendants.

On July 30, 2020, Defendant Pentland Group Limited removed this action from the Ventura County Superior Court to this Court.1 On August 6, 2020, Pentland Group filed a motion to dismiss.2 The Court granted Pentland Group’s motion on December 29, 2020, dismissing Pentland Group on forum non conveniens grounds.3 The Court also found that service of process on Pentland Group was insufficient, but explained that it would have granted leave to serve Pentland Group properly, had the Court not dismissed Pentland Group on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court’s order on Pentland Group’s motion to dismiss noted that the Court made “no ruling regarding 210 Brands’ claims for relief against Defendant Canterbury of New Zealand Limited.”4 To date, Defendant Canterbury has not appeared in this action. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a “defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”

If 210 Brands contends that it has properly served Canterbury, the Court notes that Canterbury has not filed a response to the Complaint, nor has 210 Brands sought the entry of default against Canterbury. Either way— whether 210 Brands has or has not served Canterbury—this case is languishing, and the Court must act to move it along. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to prosecute); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003) (same).

1 Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1].

Mot. to Dismiss [ECF No. 12].

Order on Mot. to Dismiss [ECF No. 48].

In view of that background, the Court, on its own motion, ORDERS Plaintiff 210 Brands Incorporated to show cause in writing, no later than March 24, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HLL

Dated: March 10, 2021

NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE