Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The order states that Everbright, LLC was served but had not answered, and directs the plaintiff to seek entry of default or dismiss the complaint by February 6, 2026.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should require plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- Whether plaintiff could satisfy the order by seeking entry of default against the nonanswering defendant or by dismissing the complaint.
Holdings
- The district court may order plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution when plaintiff has failed to advance the case.
- Plaintiff must respond to the order to show cause by seeking entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), dismissing the complaint, or otherwise explaining why dismissal should not occur; failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal.
Key quotations
“Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion” (at 1)
“Failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action.” (at 1)
Factual background
Everbright, LLC was served with the complaint but did not file an answer by the deadline. Plaintiff did not seek entry of default or otherwise advance the action, prompting the district court to issue an order to show cause regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution.
Procedural history
Everbright, LLC was served with the complaint on November 25, 2025, and its response was due December 16, 2025. Everbright did not answer, and Lopez did not request entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). The court ordered Lopez to show cause in writing by February 6, 2026, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.