Randy Navarro v. Ciara Lebamoff

C.D. California

Randy Navarro v. Ciara Lebamoff

DecidedMarch 20, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01251

StatusUnknown

This text of Randy Navarro v. Ciara Lebamoff (Randy Navarro v. Ciara Lebamoff) 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

Randy Navarro v. Ciara Lebamoff, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 2:23-cv-01251-SPG-PD Document9 Filed 03/20/23 Page1of1i Page |ID#:41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-01251-SPG(PDx) Date March 20, 2023 Title Randy Navarro et al v. Ciara Lebamoff et al Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE P. Gomez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceeding: 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, in writing, on or before April 3, 2023, 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) Ciara Lebamoff, Alexia Lebamoff, and Thomas Lebamoff 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.

Initials of Preparer pg

Page 1 of 1

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

Case 2:23-cv-01251-SPG-PD Document9 Filed 03/20/23 Page1of1i Page |ID#:41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-01251-SPG(PDx) Date March 20, 2023 Title Randy Navarro et al v. Ciara Lebamoff et al Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE P. Gomez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceeding: 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, in writing, on or before April 3, 2023, 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) Ciara Lebamoff, Alexia Lebamoff, and Thomas Lebamoff 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.

Initials of Preparer pg

Page 1 of 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Randy Navarro v. Ciara Lebamoff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randy-navarro-v-ciara-lebamoff-cacd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack