Mongkol Muay Thai Corporation v. JG (Thailand) Company Limited

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 23, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00506
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONGKOL MUAY THAI Case No. 22-cv-0506-BAS-KSC CORPORATION, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, 13 PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR v. ENTRY OF DEFAULT 14

JG (THAILAND) COMPANY LIMITED, 15 (ECF No. 11) Defendant. 16

18 On January 25, 2023, this Court entered its second Order to Show Cause for Plaintiff 19 Mongkol Muay Thai Corporation (“Mongkol”)’s failure to prosecute the instant action. 20 (Second Order to Show Cause (“Second OSC”).) It instructed Mongkol could show cause 21 either by filing a request for entry of default or by requesting an extension to do so on or 22 before February 6, 2023. (Id.) On February 6, 2023, Mongkol sought an extension to file 23 an entry of default until March 10, 2023 (ECF No. 7), which this Court granted the next 24 day (ECF No. 8). On February 28, 2023, Mongkol moved to substitute its attorney. (ECF 25 No. 9.) That motion did not contain a request to extend Mongkol’s deadline to file a request 26 for entry of default. (Id.) March 10, 2023 came and went, yet Mongkol neither filed a 27 request for entry of default nor an application for an extension of time to do so. 28 1 Now, on March 22, 2023, nearly two weeks removed from the deadline set forth in 2 ||this Court’s February 7, 2023 Order, Mongkol requests an entry of default against 3 || Defendant JG (Thailand) Company Limited. (ECF No. 11.) The request appends two 4 ||declarations (ECF Nos. 11-1, 11-2), neither of which contain attestations justifying 5 ||Mongkol’s failure to comply with the Second Order to Show Cause. Mongkol is not 6 || entitled to this Court simply overlooking its noncompliance with court-ordered deadlines. 7 || Indeed, Mongkol’s failure to abide by the Second Order to Show Cause constitutes a basis 8 || for dismissal in and of itself. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), 9 ||as amended (May 22, 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the 10 || district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”’). 11 Accordingly, Mongkol’s Request for Entry of Default is DENIED WITHOUT 12 || PREJUDICE to a renewed filing that is supported by facts showing good cause justified 13 || Mongkol’s noncompliance with the Second Order to Show Cause. 14 IT IS SO ORDERD / 15 || DATED: March 23, 2023 ( yi A (Hiphan 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28