Bautista v. Noyon Inc., CV 18-10686 FMO (GJSx). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20190530981
Visitors: 2
Filed: May 28, 2019
Latest Update: May 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FERNANDO M. OLGUIN , District Judge . On May 8, 2019, after the Clerk entered default as to the sole remaining defendant, West Third Street Group, LLC ("West"), the court issued an Order requiring plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment as to West no later than May 22, 2019. ( See Dkt. 22, Court's Order of may 8, 2019). Plaintiff was advised that "failure to file [his] motion for default judgment by the deadline. . . may result in the . . .
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FERNANDO M. OLGUIN , District Judge . On May 8, 2019, after the Clerk entered default as to the sole remaining defendant, West Third Street Group, LLC ("West"), the court issued an Order requiring plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment as to West no later than May 22, 2019. ( See Dkt. 22, Court's Order of may 8, 2019). Plaintiff was advised that "failure to file [his] motion for default judgment by the deadline. . . may result in the . . . ..
More
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, District Judge.
On May 8, 2019, after the Clerk entered default as to the sole remaining defendant, West Third Street Group, LLC ("West"), the court issued an Order requiring plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment as to West no later than May 22, 2019. (See Dkt. 22, Court's Order of may 8, 2019). Plaintiff was advised that "failure to file [his] motion for default judgment by the deadline. . . may result in the . . . action against defendant being dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962)." (Dkt. 22, Court's Order of May 8, 2019). As of the filing date of this Order, no motion for default judgment has been filed. (See, generally, Dkt.). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned case is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with an order of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Source: Leagle
