William Redick v. On Time Capital LLC

E.D. California

William Redick v. On Time Capital LLC

DecidedOctober 22, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00928

StatusUnknown

This text of William Redick v. On Time Capital LLC (William Redick v. On Time Capital LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Redick v. On Time Capital LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 WILLIAM REDICK, individually and on Case No. 1:25-cv-00928-JLT-CDB behalf of all others similarly situated,

12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY Plaintiff, SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO v. PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 14 COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS ON TIME CAPITAL LLC,

15 ORDER CONTINUING THE OCTOBER 27, Defendant. 2025, MANDATORY SCHEDULING 16 CONFERENCE

17 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE OF THIS ORDER AND 18 TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

19 FIVE (5)-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff William Redick (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 22 July 29, 2025. (Doc. 1). That same day, the Clerk of the Court issued summons for service upon 23 Defendant On Time Capital LLC (“Defendant”), and the Court entered an order setting a 24 mandatory scheduling conference for October 27, 2025. (Docs. 2, 3). The Court’s order directed 25 Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of 26 service.” (Doc. 3 at 1). Regarding scheduling of the case, the Court’s order also directed the 27 parties to file a scheduling report at least one week in advance of the scheduling conference (e.g., 28 no later than October 20, 2025). Id. at 2. The order further advised Plaintiff that failure to 1 diligently prosecute this action “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal 2 of unserved defendants.” Id. 3 Notwithstanding the Court’s order, to date, Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service nor any 4 report setting forth an explanation for the failure, and no Defendant has appeared in the action. 5 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order to timely file a scheduling report 6 in advance of the scheduling conference. The Court notes that Plaintiff and his counsel were 7 admonished of these same concerns in an order to show cause entered in an unrelated action before 8 the undersigned, William Redick v. FAVO Capital Inc., 1:25-cv-00880-JLT-CDB (Doc. 4).1 9 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 10 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 11 sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 12 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 13 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “If a defendant is 15 not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after 16 notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order 17 that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent a showing of good 18 cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant. 19 Conclusion and Order 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 21 this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed— 22 including dismissal of any unserved Defendant or this action in its entirety—for Plaintiff’s failure 23 to prosecute, failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner, failure to promptly 24 file proof of service, and failure to timely file a scheduling report. Filing summons returned 25 executed following entry of this order WILL NOT relieve Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to 26 this order in writing. 27 1 The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 28 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference previously set for October 27, 2 || 2025, is CONTINUED to December 11, 2025, at 9:00 AM. 3 And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on 4 || Defendant within five (5) days of entry of this order and promptly file proof of service thereof. 5 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order will result in the imposition of 6 || sanctions, including a recommendation to dismiss this action. 7 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 22, 2025 | hwrnrD RX 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 WILLIAM REDICK, individually and on Case No. 1:25-cv-00928-JLT-CDB behalf of all others similarly situated,

12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY Plaintiff, SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO v. PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 14 COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS ON TIME CAPITAL LLC,

15 ORDER CONTINUING THE OCTOBER 27, Defendant. 2025, MANDATORY SCHEDULING 16 CONFERENCE

17 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE OF THIS ORDER AND 18 TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

19 FIVE (5)-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff William Redick (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 22 July 29, 2025. (Doc. 1). That same day, the Clerk of the Court issued summons for service upon 23 Defendant On Time Capital LLC (“Defendant”), and the Court entered an order setting a 24 mandatory scheduling conference for October 27, 2025. (Docs. 2, 3). The Court’s order directed 25 Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of 26 service.” (Doc. 3 at 1). Regarding scheduling of the case, the Court’s order also directed the 27 parties to file a scheduling report at least one week in advance of the scheduling conference (e.g., 28 no later than October 20, 2025). Id. at 2. The order further advised Plaintiff that failure to 1 diligently prosecute this action “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal 2 of unserved defendants.” Id. 3 Notwithstanding the Court’s order, to date, Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service nor any 4 report setting forth an explanation for the failure, and no Defendant has appeared in the action. 5 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order to timely file a scheduling report 6 in advance of the scheduling conference. The Court notes that Plaintiff and his counsel were 7 admonished of these same concerns in an order to show cause entered in an unrelated action before 8 the undersigned, William Redick v. FAVO Capital Inc., 1:25-cv-00880-JLT-CDB (Doc. 4).1 9 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 10 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 11 sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 12 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 13 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “If a defendant is 15 not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after 16 notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order 17 that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent a showing of good 18 cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant. 19 Conclusion and Order 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 21 this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed— 22 including dismissal of any unserved Defendant or this action in its entirety—for Plaintiff’s failure 23 to prosecute, failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner, failure to promptly 24 file proof of service, and failure to timely file a scheduling report. Filing summons returned 25 executed following entry of this order WILL NOT relieve Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to 26 this order in writing. 27 1 The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 28 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference previously set for October 27, 2 || 2025, is CONTINUED to December 11, 2025, at 9:00 AM. 3 And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on 4 || Defendant within five (5) days of entry of this order and promptly file proof of service thereof. 5 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order will result in the imposition of 6 || sanctions, including a recommendation to dismiss this action. 7 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 22, 2025 | hwrnrD RX 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

William Redick v. On Time Capital LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-redick-v-on-time-capital-llc-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack