Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sweetser v. Scout Industries, LLC, CIV 16-640 MV/CG. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. New Mexico Number: infdco20181108l14 Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2018
Summary: SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CARMEN E. GARZA , Chief Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of the record. Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants Scout Industries, LLC and Chad Ingram on June 23, 2016. (Doc. 1). On October 11, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why Defendants had not been served. (Doc. 4). In response, Plaintiff requested an additional twenty-one days for Defendants to answer the complaint. (Doc. 5). The Court then quashed
More

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of the record. Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants Scout Industries, LLC and Chad Ingram on June 23, 2016. (Doc. 1). On October 11, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why Defendants had not been served. (Doc. 4). In response, Plaintiff requested an additional twenty-one days for Defendants to answer the complaint. (Doc. 5). The Court then quashed its Order to Show Cause, (Doc. 4), and ordered Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint by November 15, 2016. (Doc. 6). Following the Court's order, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Chad Ingram. (Doc. 7).

Plaintiff then informed the Court that the remaining Defendant, Scout Industries, LLC, was unable to defend this action and filed a Request for Entry of Default with the Clerk of Court. (Docs. 8, 9). On August 2, 2018, the Clerk of Court granted Plaintiff's motion for entry of default against Defendant Scout Industries, LLC. (Doc. 11).

More than ninety days have passed since the Clerk's entry of default for the remaining Defendant and Plaintiff has taken no further action with the Court in this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before Monday, November 19, 2018, Plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer