Zerorez Franchising Systems Inc. v. Zero Residue Carpet Cleaning

C.D. California

Zerorez Franchising Systems Inc. v. Zero Residue Carpet Cleaning

DecidedApril 2, 2024

Docket8:24-cv-00567

StatusUnknown

This text of Zerorez Franchising Systems Inc. v. Zero Residue Carpet Cleaning (Zerorez Franchising Systems Inc. v. Zero Residue Carpet Cleaning) 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

Zerorez Franchising Systems Inc. v. Zero Residue Carpet Cleaning, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Case No. SACV 24-00567-JVS-JDEx Date April 2, 2024 Title Zerorez Franchising Systems Inc. et al v. Zero Residue Carpet Cleaning et al

Present: The Honorable JAMES V. SELNA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Erica Bustos for Elsa Vargas 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 On March 18, 2024, the Clerk of Court filed a Notice to Counsel Re: Copyright, Patent, and Reporting Requirements, directing Plaintiff to file the appropriate AO-120 and/or AO-121 with the Clerk within 10 days. (Dkt. 9.) The record reflects counsel has not filed the required at this time. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in on or before April 9, 2024, at 12:00 p.m., why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may discharge this order by filing the forms required by the Central District of California’s Local Rule 3-1. Failure to comply with the court's order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiffs 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 693, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 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 the court to sua sponte a case for lack of prosecution.”).

Initial of Deputy Clerk eb

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. SACV 24-00567-JVS-JDEx Date April 2, 2024 Title Zerorez Franchising Systems Inc. et al v. Zero Residue Carpet Cleaning et al

Present: The Honorable JAMES V. SELNA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Erica Bustos for Elsa Vargas 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 On March 18, 2024, the Clerk of Court filed a Notice to Counsel Re: Copyright, Patent, and Reporting Requirements, directing Plaintiff to file the appropriate AO-120 and/or AO-121 with the Clerk within 10 days. (Dkt. 9.) The record reflects counsel has not filed the required at this time. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in on or before April 9, 2024, at 12:00 p.m., why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may discharge this order by filing the forms required by the Central District of California’s Local Rule 3-1. Failure to comply with the court's order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiffs 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 693, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 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 the court to sua sponte a case for lack of prosecution.”).

Initial of Deputy Clerk eb

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zerorez Franchising Systems Inc. v. Zero Residue Carpet Cleaning, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zerorez-franchising-systems-inc-v-zero-residue-carpet-cleaning-cacd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack