Bernard v. Coastal Laundromat, Inc., CV 18-3066 DSF (ASx). (2018)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20180831855
Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2018
Summary: Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Prosecution DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . This case was filed on April 12, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the Court issued an order to show re dismissal for lack of prosecution because Plaintiff had not indicated that he had served the Defendant. Plaintiff responded to the OSC on July 23, 2018, stating that he had served Defendant through substituted service at some unspecified time, but had not mailed process as required by the substitute service statute. Pl
Summary: Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Prosecution DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . This case was filed on April 12, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the Court issued an order to show re dismissal for lack of prosecution because Plaintiff had not indicated that he had served the Defendant. Plaintiff responded to the OSC on July 23, 2018, stating that he had served Defendant through substituted service at some unspecified time, but had not mailed process as required by the substitute service statute. Pla..
More
Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Prosecution
DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.
This case was filed on April 12, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the Court issued an order to show re dismissal for lack of prosecution because Plaintiff had not indicated that he had served the Defendant. Plaintiff responded to the OSC on July 23, 2018, stating that he had served Defendant through substituted service at some unspecified time, but had not mailed process as required by the substitute service statute. Plaintiff indicated that his process server would complete service and Plaintiff would file a proof of service within three weeks. Plaintiff did not attempt to show good cause for the failure to serve or to explain why it would take three weeks to file a proof of service. In any event, three weeks passed and no proof of service was filed. Therefore, the case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
