Case Information
*1 Case 2:25-cv-00086-MAR Document 12 Filed 06/11/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-00086-MAR Date: June 11, 2025 Title: Robert Cauley v. Westside Car Rentals, Inc. et al
Present: The Honorable: MARGO A. ROCCONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE VELASCO N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On January 3, 2025, Plaintiff Robert Cauley (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Westside Car Rentals, Inc. and MMSZZ Investments LLC (“Defendants”) and Defendants Does 1 through 10. ECF Docket No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff served Defendants with the summons and Complaint on February 19, 2025—accordingly, Defendants’ answer was due on March 12, 2025. Dkts. 7–8. To date, Defendants have not filed an answer to the Complaint. On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff requested an entry of default against Defendants. Dkt. 10. The Clerk of this Court entered default against Defendants on March 14, 2025. Dkt. 11. To date, Plaintiff has not moved for default judgment against Defendants.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute her case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case with reasonable diligence because he has failed to file a motion for default judgment for over three months.
Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment or to show cause in writing as to why he has not moved for default judgment, on or before June 25, 2025. Plaintiff is expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in this action being dismissed without prejudice as to one or more defendant(s) for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 1 of 2 *2 Case 2:25-cv-00086-MAR Document 12 Filed 06/11/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-00086-MAR Date: June 11, 2025 Title: Robert Cauley v. Westside Car Rentals, Inc. et al
IT IS SO ORDERED.
: Initials of vv Preparer CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 2 of 2