Eduardo Sapetto v. Tate and Kirlin Associates, Inc.

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Eduardo Sapetto v. Tate and Kirlin Associates, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

Case 2:23-cv-00245-SPG-AGR Document11 Filed 03/16/23 Pagelof1 Page |ID#:44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-00245-SPG(AGRx) Date March 16, 2023 Title Eduardo Sapetto v. Tate and Kirlin Associates, Inc.

ee Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE P. Gomez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceeding: CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION 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 below time period(s) has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before March 31, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. This matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. Defendant Tate and Kirlin Associates, Inc. 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.

Initials of Preparer pg

Page 1 of 1

Reference

Status
Unknown