Filed: Jul. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2012
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge. On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint. 1 (ECF No. 1). On October 3, 2011, the summons was returned executed on behalf of Defendants Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. On November 4, 2011, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. Since November 4, 2011, the docket reflects that no action
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge. On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint. 1 (ECF No. 1). On October 3, 2011, the summons was returned executed on behalf of Defendants Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. On November 4, 2011, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. Since November 4, 2011, the docket reflects that no action ..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint.1 (ECF No. 1). On October 3, 2011, the summons was returned executed on behalf of Defendants Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. On November 4, 2011, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. Since November 4, 2011, the docket reflects that no action has been taken by either party in this case with regards to Defendants Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC.
On June 4, 2012, this court issued an Order stating:
Pursuant to Local Rule 41.1, "[a]ctions or proceedings which have been pending in this court for more than six months, without any proceeding or discovery having been taken therein during such period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the court for want of prosecution." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 41.1; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It appearing to the Court that dismissal for want of prosecution may be appropriate in this case, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff shall file a written response to this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE on or before July 5, 2012. If Plaintiff does not respond, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.
(ECF No. 17 at 1-2).
To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a written response to the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
