United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2023

Paul Liang v. Kevin Robl

Paul Liang v. Kevin Robl
United States District Court for the Central District of California · Decided January 25, 2023
Paul Liang v. Kevin Robl

Trial Court Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-01430-FWS-GJS Document 144 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:1013 __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: 2:22-cv-01430-FWS-GJS Date: January 25, 2023 Title: Paul Liang et al. v. Kevin Robl et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION Plaintiffs Paul Liang, The Princeton Project, Inc., Fang Fang Ho, and Real Winners, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) were ordered to serve process on Defendant Daniel Petta under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) by January 17, 2023. (Dkt. 142.) On January 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled “Declaration of Non-Service” stating that a process server was unable to serve Defendant Petta. (Dkt. 143.)

At this juncture, the court has received no further filings from Plaintiffs and the January 17, 2023, deadline for service has now passed. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause in writing no later than February 1, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Failure to comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku ____________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.