Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias sued Cupid's Closet Wilshire, LLC and an individual co-defendant in the Central District of California, case number 2:26-cv-11058. On October 28, 2026, the assigned district judge, Stephen V. Wilson, issued a general civil minute order in chambers. No counsel appeared, and the minutes record no hearing. The order does not rule on any claim or defense. It does not describe the underlying allegations, so nothing in it tests the merits of the complaint.
The stated trigger is narrow. According to the minutes, both defendants did not answer the complaint, yet the plaintiff has not asked for entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). The form order says a time period 'has not been met' but does not identify the deadline, the date of service, or whether proof of service was filed. Those facts are not established by the order, and this article does not infer them. For its authority, the court cited Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), for the proposition that a district court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court issued an order to show cause. It did not dismiss the case. It directed the plaintiff to explain in writing, on or before November 4, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The matter will stand submitted once the plaintiff responds, citing Rule 78. That signals the court expects to decide on the written response without a hearing. The order warns that a failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action.
The order names two ways the plaintiff can satisfy it: seek entry of default against the defendants who have not answered, or dismiss the complaint. Requesting entry of default under Rule 55(a) is only the first step in the default process, and it is distinct from a default judgment, which requires further steps. The order itself enters no default and grants the plaintiff no relief.
This is an interim, non-final case-management order issued on the court's own motion. No dismissal, with or without prejudice, has been entered, and no judgment exists. The order does not say whether any later dismissal would be with or without prejudice, or whether leave to amend would be allowed. Those questions stay open and depend on what the plaintiff files, if anything. The record provided does not show whether a response has been filed.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may begin dismissal proceedings for lack of prosecution on its own motion, and this court grounded that power in Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.
- The order rests on a specific gap: the defendants had not answered, but the plaintiff had not requested entry of default under Rule 55(a).
- The plaintiff had until November 4, 2026 to respond in writing, and silence will be treated as consent to dismissal.
- Seeking entry of default or dismissing the complaint will each satisfy the order, so the plaintiff has a simple path to compliance.
- The order is not a dismissal or a ruling on the merits, so the case remains pending and any later dismissal terms are undetermined.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Central District judge uses a short form minute order to keep a case moving when a plaintiff does not follow up on non-answering defendants. A party who serves a complaint and receives no answer should promptly ask the clerk to enter default instead of waiting. Missing that step can prompt a sua sponte order with a short deadline and a stated consequence for silence.
The order has limited precedential value. It is a one-page chambers minute order with no reasoning on the merits, and it carries no weight as a decision on any substantive question. Its usefulness is practical: it shows the court's expectations for early-stage default practice. The next event depends on the plaintiff's response, so the record cannot show whether the case will be dismissed, proceed toward default, or be voluntarily dismissed.