Case Information
*1 Case 2:24-cv-04055-PA-SSC Document 31 Filed 08/13/24 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:264
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 24-4055 PA (SSCx) Date August 13, 2024 Title Pavillon LLC v. Pegpack, LLC, et al.
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Kamilla Sali-Suleyman Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal For Lack Of Prosecution
On June 26, 2024, the Court issued an order requiring plaintiff Pavillon LLC (“Plaintiff”) to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Docket No. 25 (“Order to Show Cause”).) Generally, defendants must answer the complaint within 21 days after service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff filed proofs of service indicating that defendants Pegpack, LLC and Nikita Baranovsky (“Baranovsky”) (collectively, “Defendants”) were served with the Summons and Complaint on May 31, 2024 (Docket Nos. 23–24), yet Defendants have not answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint.
Plaintiff filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, and, on June 28, 2024, filed requests for the Clerk to enter Defendants’ defaults. The Clerk entered the default of Pegpack, LLC on July 2, 2024, but declined to enter Baranovsky’s default on the grounds that “the Proof of Service lacks a declaration of due diligence.” (Docket No. 28.) The Clerk explained that Plaintiff “shall file a new Request/Application with noted deficiencies corrected in order to have default reconsidered.” (Id.)
On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second proof of service as to Baranovsky, along with attached declarations. (Docket No. 30.) The filing includes a declaration of due diligence by Plaintiff’s professional Process Server stating the actions taken in May 2024 to attempt personal service on Baranovsky before completing substitute service. (Docket No. 30-2.) Further, the attached declarations describe the steps Plaintiff has taken to serve Baranovsky at a possible second address. (Docket Nos. 30-1, 30-2.) The proof of service indicates that service on Baranovsky at this second address was completed on July 5, 2024. (Docket No. 30.)
More than 21 days have passed since Plaintiff served Baranovsky at the second address, but Baranovsky has not answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint. To date, Plaintiff has not re-filed its request for the Clerk to enter Baranovsky’s default.
The Court discharges its Order to Show Cause as to Pegpack, LLC, but orders Plaintiff to CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 *2 Case 2:24-cv-04055-PA-SSC Document 31 Filed 08/13/24 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:265
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 24-4055 PA (SSCx) Date August 13, 2024 Title Pavillon LLC v. Pegpack, LLC, et al.
re-file its request for the Clerk to enter Baranovsky’s default by August 26, 2024 . Failure to comply with this Order may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Baranovsky without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2