Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title: Edward Rezek v. City of Tustin et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 14, 2012

TITLE: EDWARD REZEK
v.
CITY OF TUSTIN ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable David O. Carter, Judge

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE

Julie Barrera N/A Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE STAYED OR DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

It is the responsibility of Plaintiff to respond promptly to all Orders and to prosecute the action diligently, including filing proofs of service and stipulations extending time to respond. If necessary, Plaintiff must also pursue Rule 55 remedies promptly upon default of any defendant. All stipulations affecting the progress of the case must be approved by the Court. Local Rule 7-1.

On April 6, 2012 this Court ordered plaintiff to show by April 20, 2012 why this case should not be dismissed as to all remaining defendants for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. 16). As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff, this Court stated it would accept one of the following as evidence that the matter was being prosecuted diligently: (1) Defendant's Answer to Complaint; or (2) Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default. Plaintiff failed to exercise either of those options on or before April 20, 2012. However, in opposing a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff mentioned that at least some of the Defendants had stipulated to staying the case. Opp'n (Dkt. 27) at 4.

Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in a brief of no more than 2 pages filed no later than 5:00 PM on SEPTEMBER 20, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed as to the City of Tustin, Brian Chupp, Mark Turner, and Scott Jordan ("City Defendants") for lack of prosecution.

As an alternative to a written response by Plaintiff, the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently:

 The City Defendants' Answer to the First Amended Complaint  Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default against the City Defendants

In addition, the Court ORDERS all Defendants to show cause in a brief of no more than 2 pages filed no later than 5:00 PM on SEPTEMBER 20, 2012, why this entire case should not be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution against Plaintiff in Superior Court, Orange, Case No. 10CM00225. In addition, City Defendants' briefs should explain why they have failed to file an answer for almost an entire year.

20120914

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.