Christiana Trust v. Hollywood Ranch Homeowners Association, 2:17-cv-02441-JCM-NJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180412c64
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is an order for Plaintiff to show cause why its claims against the non-appearing Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 29. Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 32. Plaintiff also filed notices of intent to take default. Docket Nos. 30-31. The Court is satisfied that dismissal is not appropriate at this time, but CAUTIONS Plaintiff that it must diligently prosecute this case. 1 The order
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is an order for Plaintiff to show cause why its claims against the non-appearing Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 29. Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 32. Plaintiff also filed notices of intent to take default. Docket Nos. 30-31. The Court is satisfied that dismissal is not appropriate at this time, but CAUTIONS Plaintiff that it must diligently prosecute this case. 1 The order ..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is an order for Plaintiff to show cause why its claims against the non-appearing Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 29. Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 32. Plaintiff also filed notices of intent to take default. Docket Nos. 30-31. The Court is satisfied that dismissal is not appropriate at this time, but CAUTIONS Plaintiff that it must diligently prosecute this case.1 The order to show cause is otherwise DISCHARGED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In its response to the order to show cause, Plaintiff relies in part on the fact that it has sought a stay of this case. See Docket No. 32 at 3-4. The filing of a motion to stay has no legal effect on whether a case must proceed; a case is only stayed if the Court issues an order so directing. See, e.g., Willemijn Houdstermaatschappij BV v. Apollo Computer Inc., 707 F.Supp. 1429, 1441 (D. Del. 1989).
Source: Leagle
