Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan and other plaintiffs sued Sherwood Media, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:26-cv-08869. The civil minutes entered on November 2, 2026, do not describe the underlying claims, so this article does not characterize them. The only procedural facts the order recites concern the defendant's silence and the plaintiffs' inaction.
According to the order, Sherwood Media did not answer the complaint, yet the plaintiffs had not asked the clerk to enter default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). The court stated that a time period had not been met, without specifying which one or when it began to run. Acting on its own motion, and citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), for the court's inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own initiative, it issued an order to show cause. No party appeared, and the minutes were prepared in chambers without a hearing.
The Court’s Holding
This is a procedural show-cause order, not a ruling on the merits and not a dismissal. The court made no finding that the plaintiffs failed to prosecute; it directed them to explain, in writing, on or before November 6, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed on that ground. Nothing in the order enters default, resolves any claim, or terminates the case.
The order sets the procedure that follows. The matter will stand submitted once the plaintiffs file their response, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, which allows motions to be decided without oral argument. The court warned that failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action. The order does not say whether any dismissal would be with or without prejudice, because no dismissal has yet been ordered.
The court also told the plaintiffs how to satisfy the order: they may seek entry of default against Sherwood Media under Rule 55(a), or they may dismiss the complaint. Either step would respond to the court's concern without a contested showing of cause. Whether the plaintiffs responded, and what the court did afterward, is not in the materials reviewed.
Key Takeaways
- A federal district court may, on its own motion, order a plaintiff to show cause why a case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, relying on the inherent power described in Link v. Wabash R. Co.
- Here the stated trigger was that the defendant had not answered the complaint while the plaintiffs had not requested entry of default under Rule 55(a). A defendant's silence does not relieve the plaintiff of the duty to keep the case moving.
- The response window was short: the order issued on November 2, 2026, and required a written response by November 6, 2026, with the matter submitted on the filing of that response.
- Silence is costly, because the order states that a failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal. Plaintiffs can instead seek entry of default or dismiss the complaint.
- This minute order is not a reported decision and carries no precedential weight; it is a case-management step, not a decision on liability, and the outcome of the show-cause process remains open.
Why It Matters
For litigants, the order is a practical reminder of the two-step default process in federal court. Entry of default by the clerk under Rule 55(a) is the first step that follows a defendant's failure to plead or otherwise defend, and it is the plaintiff's responsibility to request it. A court that sees a defendant unresponsive and a plaintiff idle may use its inherent authority, rather than wait for a motion, to ask why the case is still pending.
The order's reach is limited. It is an in-chambers minute order that is not a reported decision, it announces no new rule, and it resolves nothing about the dispute between the pension plan and Sherwood Media. What remains open is whether the plaintiffs filed a timely response, whether default was requested or the complaint dismissed, and whether the court ultimately dismissed the case or allowed it to proceed toward later default proceedings. Practitioners should treat it as an illustration of routine docket management in the Central District, not as authority on the standard for dismissal under Link.