Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rogelio Santibanez brought this action against Chap4 LLC and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is docketed as No. 2:26-cv-06826-SVW-MAR. On November 2, 2026, District Judge Stephen V. Wilson issued an in-chambers order to show cause concerning dismissal for lack of prosecution. No attorneys appeared for either side, and the two-page civil minutes order addressed the plaintiff's next steps rather than deciding the merits of the complaint.
The order identified different procedural circumstances for two defendants. It stated that 2474 Lincoln Boulevard, LLC had not answered the complaint, but Santibanez had not requested entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). As to Chap4 LLC, the order stated that the plaintiff had obtained entry of default under Rule 55(a), but had not sought a default judgment under Rule 55(b). The court therefore focused on the absence of further action needed either to move the case toward judgment or to bring it to a close.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Santibanez to show cause in writing, on or before November 6, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. It invoked Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), for the proposition that a court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion. The order expressly warned that failure to respond would be deemed consent to dismissal of the action. It also stated that the matter would stand submitted upon the filing of the plaintiff's response, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.
For 2474 Lincoln Boulevard, LLC, the court said Santibanez could satisfy the order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint. For Chap4 LLC, where default already had been entered, the court said he could satisfy the order by seeking default judgment or by notifying the court that default judgment would not be sought. If he provided that notice, the order stated, the clerk would close the matter. The order did not itself dismiss the case, enter default against 2474 Lincoln Boulevard, LLC, or grant a default judgment against Chap4 LLC.
Key Takeaways
- The court set a November 6, 2026 deadline for a written response explaining why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- The order warned that failure to respond would be treated as consent to dismissal, making a timely filing important even if the plaintiff disputed the court's concerns.
- As to 2474 Lincoln Boulevard, LLC, the identified options were to seek entry of default under Rule 55(a) or dismiss the complaint.
- As to Chap4 LLC, default already had been entered, and the plaintiff could seek default judgment under Rule 55(b) or notify the court that he would not do so.
- The order was a show-cause directive, not a final dismissal or a ruling on the merits of Santibanez's claims.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how a district court may use its inherent authority to address inactivity before a case reaches judgment. Rather than immediately dismissing the action, the court identified the specific default-related steps that remained unfinished and gave the plaintiff a short opportunity to respond. Its references to Rules 55(a) and 55(b) also distinguish entry of default from default judgment: the court treated those as separate stages and described a different deficiency for each defendant.
The practical consequence was to place the choice of next steps on Santibanez. He could pursue the available default procedures, dismiss the complaint as the order permitted for the unanswered defendant, or state that he would not seek default judgment against Chap4 LLC so the matter could be closed. The order left the show-cause issue open pending the written response and did not determine liability, damages, or any other substantive issue in the case.