210 Brands Incorporated v. Canterbury of New Zealand Limited

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 210 BRANDS INCORPORATED, a Case No. 2:20-cv-06853-JWH-ASx Nevada corporation, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 REGARDING DISMISSAL FOR v. LACK OF PROSECUTION 14 CANTERBURY OF NEW ZEALAND 15 LIMITED, an English corporation, and 16 PENTLAND GROUP LIMITED, an English corporation, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 On July 30, 2020, Defendant Pentland Group Limited removed this 2 action from the Ventura County Superior Court to this Court.1 On August 6, 3 2020, Pentland Group filed a motion to dismiss.2 The Court granted Pentland 4 Group’s motion on December 29, 2020, dismissing Pentland Group on forum 5 non conveniens grounds.3 The Court also found that service of process on 6 Pentland Group was insufficient, but explained that it would have granted leave 7 to serve Pentland Group properly, had the Court not dismissed Pentland Group 8 on the basis of forum non conveniens. 9 The Court’s order on Pentland Group’s motion to dismiss noted that the 10 Court made “no ruling regarding 210 Brands’ claims for relief against 11 Defendant Canterbury of New Zealand Limited.”4 To date, Defendant 12 Canterbury has not appeared in this action. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the 13 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a “defendant is not served within 90 days 14 after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to 15 the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant 16 or order that service be made within a specified time.” 17 If 210 Brands contends that it has properly served Canterbury, the Court 18 notes that Canterbury has not filed a response to the Complaint, nor has 19 210 Brands sought the entry of default against Canterbury. Either way— 20 whether 210 Brands has or has not served Canterbury—this case is languishing, 21 and the Court must act to move it along. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 22 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (court may sua sponte dismiss for 23 failure to prosecute); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003) 24 (same). 25

26 1 Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1]. 2 Mot. to Dismiss [ECF No. 12]. 27 3 Order on Mot. to Dismiss [ECF No. 48]. 1 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. HLL 6 || Dated: March 10, 2021 7 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28