Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Doublas Sed v. Roy Egari, et al., No. 8:26-cv-02013, is a civil action pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The order, issued in chambers on October 27, 2026 by Judge Fred W. Slaughter in a civil minutes form, concerns only one defendant, Hero's Liquor & Market. The order does not describe the underlying claims, and nothing in it addresses the merits of the complaint.
According to the court, Plaintiff has filed a proof of service, the deadline for that defendant to respond to the complaint has passed, and Plaintiff has taken no action since. The order does not say whether the defendant answered, defaulted, or sought an extension; it describes only the plaintiff's inaction. It reminds Plaintiff that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to move a case toward a merits disposition, which includes promptly filing stipulations extending a defendant's time to respond, pursuing default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 when a defendant fails to respond on time, or dismissing a case the plaintiff has chosen not to pursue.
The Court’s Holding
This is an order to show cause, not a dismissal. Acting on its own motion, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than October 29, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The order is directed to the claims against Hero's Liquor & Market, as its caption states, and it does not dismiss anything, enter default, or make any finding about the merits. Whether the case will be dismissed remains open and depends on Plaintiff's response.
The court identified three alternatives that it would treat as an adequate response to the order, if filed by the same date: a request for entry of default as to the defendant or the defendant's answer; a stipulation extending the defendant's time to respond that complies with Local Rule 8.3; or a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 as to the defendant. The order will stand submitted once a timely and appropriate response is filed, and no oral argument will be heard unless the court orders it.
The court warned that failure to file a timely and appropriate response may result in dismissal without further notice or order. For authority it cited Rule 41(b), Local Rule 41-6, Link v. Wabash Railroad, Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, and Ash v. Cvetkov for the proposition that a court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to prosecute. The order does not state whether any later dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Plaintiffs, not the court or the defendant, carry the burden of moving a case toward a merits disposition, including pursuing default when a served defendant does not respond.
- Filing a proof of service does not end a plaintiff's obligations; after the response deadline passes, silence can prompt a sua sponte order to show cause.
- The order identifies three ways to satisfy it without a written explanation: a default request or answer, a compliant stipulation under Local Rule 8.3, or a voluntary dismissal.
- The deadline was only two days after issuance, so counsel should monitor the docket and respond immediately.
- The order warned only of possible dismissal and did not specify prejudice, so what a later dismissal would look like is unresolved.
Why It Matters
This minute order is a routine but instructive example of case management in the Central District of California. It is a short, unpublished docket order that carries no precedential weight; it applies settled authority rather than announcing a new rule, and it resolves nothing about the dispute between the parties.
Its practical value lies in the roadmap it gives. Plaintiffs facing a nonresponsive defendant should move promptly toward default under Rule 55 or document any agreed extension, and should dismiss claims they will not pursue. The court's willingness to act without a motion shows that a lapsed response deadline is monitored. Because the order is only a warning, the outcome depends on Plaintiff's filing, and the register should be checked for what followed.