Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bridget Botto filed a civil action against Green Thumb International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:26-cv-09491. On October 19, 2026, Judge Stephen V. Wilson issued a one-page in-chambers civil minute order captioned as an order to show cause regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution. No attorneys appeared for either side because the order was issued in chambers without a hearing. The minute order does not describe the plaintiff's claims, the relief sought, or the filing and service dates, so the underlying dispute is not part of this record.
The order states that the defendant did not answer the complaint, yet the plaintiff has failed to request entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). The form order recites that a time period has not been met, and an X marks the default-related ground. Acting on its own motion, the court cited Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), for the proposition that a court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution without a motion from a party. The order does not say that default has been entered, that the defendant was served on a particular date, or that the plaintiff missed any specific earlier deadline beyond what the form recites.
The Court’s Holding
The order is a notice and opportunity to respond, not a dismissal. The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing, on or before October 28, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The matter will stand submitted upon the filing of the response, meaning the court will decide on the papers without a hearing, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. The order warns that failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action.
The order also tells the plaintiff how to satisfy it: by seeking entry of default against Green Thumb International, Inc., or by dismissing the complaint. The court made no finding on the merits, did not enter default, and did not decide whether any eventual dismissal would be with or without prejudice. Whether the case proceeds, ends by dismissal at the plaintiff's election, or is dismissed by the court depends on what the plaintiff does by the deadline.
Key Takeaways
- A federal district court may raise lack of prosecution on its own motion, and this order relies on Link v. Wabash R. Co. for that inherent power.
- The order is only a show-cause directive; it does not dismiss the case, enter default, or resolve any claim.
- The plaintiff's written response is due by October 28, 2026, and silence will be treated as consent to dismissal.
- The order identifies two ways to comply: request entry of default under Rule 55(a) or dismiss the complaint.
- As an unpublished, case-specific minute order, it has no precedential weight and shows only how this court handled an unanswered complaint with no default request.
Why It Matters
Rule 55(a) contemplates that default is entered when a party against whom relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend. This order reflects the practical consequence: a defendant's silence does not by itself move the case forward unless the plaintiff takes that first step. The court treated the plaintiff's inaction, not the defendant's failure to answer, as the problem warranting a response.
The order is an unpublished, routine docket-management ruling and carries no precedential weight. Its value is as a practical illustration for plaintiffs to request default promptly when a defendant does not respond. Several matters remain open: the content of the plaintiff's response, whether default is requested or the complaint is dismissed, and whether the court ultimately dismisses and on what terms. Any default judgment would require further steps that this order does not address.