Michael Mente v. Traveon Rogers et al

C.D. California

Michael Mente v. Traveon Rogers et al

DecidedNovember 24, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-04470

StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Mente v. Traveon Rogers et al (Michael Mente v. Traveon Rogers et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael Mente v. Traveon Rogers et al, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Case No. 2:24-cv-04470-SPG-SK Date November 24, 2025 Title Michael Mente v. Traveon Rogers et al

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

Proceeding: (INCHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On July 1, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff Michael Mente’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Judgment under Rule 55(b)(1). (ECF No. 41 (“Order”)). The denial informed Plaintiff that it was without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling a Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), that: (1) complied with all requirements of the Rule and related Local Rules; (2) addressed the factors set forth in Eite/ v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); and (3) addressed whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Traveon Rogers, as described in /n re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). (/d.). To date, the docket reflects that Plaintiff has not refiled the motion, and Plaintiff has failed to otherwise prosecute the action. Under the circumstances, the Court enjoys the inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash 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.”). Consistent with that authority, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before December 10, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff should also set forth in Plaintiffs response the current status of the litigation. This matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff's response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Failure of Plaintiff to respond will be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action. IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 00

Initials of Preparer pg

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Case No. 2:24-cv-04470-SPG-SK Date November 24, 2025 Title Michael Mente v. Traveon Rogers et al

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

Proceeding: (INCHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On July 1, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff Michael Mente’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Judgment under Rule 55(b)(1). (ECF No. 41 (“Order”)). The denial informed Plaintiff that it was without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling a Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), that: (1) complied with all requirements of the Rule and related Local Rules; (2) addressed the factors set forth in Eite/ v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); and (3) addressed whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Traveon Rogers, as described in /n re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). (/d.). To date, the docket reflects that Plaintiff has not refiled the motion, and Plaintiff has failed to otherwise prosecute the action. Under the circumstances, the Court enjoys the inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash 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.”). Consistent with that authority, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before December 10, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff should also set forth in Plaintiffs response the current status of the litigation. This matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff's response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Failure of Plaintiff to respond will be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action. IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 00

Initials of Preparer pg

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michael Mente v. Traveon Rogers et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-mente-v-traveon-rogers-et-al-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack