Giovanni Stewart v. VW Credit, Inc. et al

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-01992
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

8:25-cv-01992-FWS-JDE Date November 19, 2025 Title Giovanni Stewart v. VW Credit, Inc. et al

Present: The Honorable FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Rolls Royce Paschal Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present Proceedings: (INCHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION AS TO DEFENDANTS EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. AND TRANSUNION, LLC is the plaintiffs responsibility to move a case toward a merits disposition.” Thomas v. 2019 WL 8888200, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2019) (citing Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991)). That includes, where applicable, promptly (a) filing stipulations a defendant’s time to respond to the complaint, (b) pursuing default and remedies under Federal Rule of Civil] Procedure 55 when a defendant fails to timely respond to the complaint, or dismissing a case the plaintiff has chosen not to pursue for any reason. Here, Plaintiff has filed a proof of service, yet the deadline for Defendants to respond to the has passed and Plaintiffhas taken no action. Accordingly, the court, on its own motion, ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than November 21, 2025, why this should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an altemative to a written response by the Court will consider as an appropriate response to this OSC the filing of one of the on or before the above date: 1. Plaintiffs Request for Entry of Default as to the Defendants or Defendants’ Answer, 2. Astipulation extending Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint that complies with Local Rule 8.3, or 3. Anotice of Voluntary Dismissal (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41) as to the Defendants. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will submitted upon the filing of a timely and appropriate response. Failure to file a timely and response to this Order may result in dismissal without further notice or order from the See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L. R. 41-6; Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The 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

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

Case No. 8:25-cv-01992-FWS-JDE Date November 19, 2025 Title Giovanni Stewart v. VW Credit, Inc. et al

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 court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

Initial of Deputy Clerk = rrp