Morgan Seftel v. Lickndip LLC

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Morgan Seftel v. Lickndip LLC

Trial Court Opinion

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

Case No.: 2:25-cv-07975-SVW-JC Date: December 8, 2025

Title: Morgan Seftel v. Lickndip LLC

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, United States District Judge Daniel Tamayo N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Appearing None Appearing

Proceedings: [In 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, 1n writing, on or before December 17, 2025, 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(s) Lickndip LLC 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.

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk DTA

Reference

Status
Unknown