Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Edward H Brockschmidt IV sued the City of Los Angeles and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is docketed as No. CV 26-8950 FMO (Ex), also shown in the filing header as 2:26-cv-08950-FMO-E. On November 5, 2026, the court issued civil minutes reflecting an in-chambers order to show cause concerning dismissal for lack of prosecution. No attorneys were present for either side, and no court reporter or recorder was present.
The minutes identify service and response deadlines as the procedural concern. The court stated that it appeared one or more applicable time periods had not been met. The document does not describe the underlying claims, identify each defendant beyond the caption's reference to the City of Los Angeles and others, or specify which service or response deadline had expired. It also does not record a motion by any defendant; the court acted on its own motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing, on or before November 12, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. It explained that, absent good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice when the summons and complaint are not served within 90 days after filing, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court also described the general 21-day answer period after service, or 60 days when the defendant is the United States, and noted that dismissal may occur before 90 days if a plaintiff has not diligently prosecuted the action.
The order provides two checked routes for the matter to stand submitted: proof of service of the summons and complaint on all defendants, and an answer by all defendants, by the stated deadline. The court found the matter appropriate for submission without oral argument under Rule 78(b). It warned that failure to file a timely response would result in the action or the identified defendants being dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders, citing Local Rule 41, Rules 4 and 41(b), and Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. This was a show-cause directive, not an actual dismissal or a merits ruling.
Key Takeaways
- The plaintiff must respond in writing by November 12, 2026, and show why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- The court directed submission of proof of service of the summons and complaint on all defendants and an answer by all defendants by the specified deadline.
- The order explains that Rule 4(m) generally requires dismissal without prejudice, absent good cause, when service is not completed within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
- No oral argument will be held because the court found the matter appropriate for submission without oral argument under Rule 78(b).
- The case had not yet been dismissed, but the court expressly warned that failure to respond timely would result in dismissal for lack of prosecution and noncompliance with its orders.
Why It Matters
The order places the immediate burden on the plaintiff to address the apparent service and response deficiencies and preserve the action. Its practical focus is compliance: the court identified all defendants for both proof of service and answers, set a short written-response deadline, and dispensed with oral argument.
The minutes do not decide whether good cause exists, whether any particular defendant was properly served, or whether dismissal is ultimately warranted. They also provide no ruling on the merits of the plaintiff's claims. The verified disposition is therefore the issuance of an order to show cause with an express dismissal warning, leaving the action's continuation dependent on the required filing and the court's later determination.