Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Chao Chung Tseng and co-plaintiffs filed this action against LA Metropolis Hotel, LLC and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, assigned case number 2:26-cv-09313-FMO-DMK. On November 5, 2026, the Honorable Fernando M. Olguin issued civil minutes (Document 12) reflecting an in-chambers order to show cause regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution. No attorneys appeared for either plaintiffs or defendants, and the court found the matter appropriate for submission without oral argument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b).
The order applies the timing rules that govern early case progress. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), absent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Defendants generally must answer within 21 days after service, or 60 days if the defendant is the United States, under Rule 12(a). The court may dismiss even before the 90-day period expires if the plaintiffs have not diligently prosecuted the action, and plaintiffs seeking to serve individuals or business entities in a foreign country must exercise all reasonable diligence and attempt service within the 90-day window.
In the present case, the court observed that it appears one or more of these time periods has not been met. Because the deadlines governing service and response had apparently lapsed without compliance, the court initiated the show-cause process on its own motion rather than waiting for a defendant to move for dismissal.
The Court’s Holding
Acting on its own motion, the court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause in writing on or before November 12, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The court found that it appeared one or more of the applicable service and response deadlines had not been met, and it determined under Rule 78(b) that the matter was appropriate for submission without oral argument.
The order to show cause will stand submitted upon the filing, on or before the stated deadline, of either proofs of service of the summons and complaint on all defendants or an answer by all defendants. In other words, the plaintiffs can avert dismissal at this stage by demonstrating timely service on every defendant or by showing that every defendant has answered.
The court warned that failure to file a timely response to the order to show cause will result in the action, or the above-named defendants, being dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the orders of the court. The minutes cite Local Rule 41, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 41(b), and Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962).
Key Takeaways
- The court acted sua sponte, ordering the plaintiffs to show cause in writing by November 12, 2026, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- The order was triggered because it appeared that the service deadline under Rule 4(m) or the answer deadlines under Rule 12(a) had not been satisfied.
- The order stands submitted if plaintiffs file proofs of service of the summons and complaint on all defendants, or answers from all defendants, by the deadline.
- The court submitted the matter without oral argument under Rule 78(b), so no hearing will occur.
- Failure to respond timely will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution and noncompliance with court orders, under Local Rule 41, Rules 4 and 41(b), and Link v. Wabash.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the Central District of California's routine but consequential enforcement of early-case deadlines. Even before the 90-day service window closes, the court may move to dismiss where plaintiffs have not diligently prosecuted their claims, and the burden falls on plaintiffs to demonstrate good cause or cure the deficiency by the show-cause deadline. The consequence of inaction is dismissal of the action or the named defendants for lack of prosecution.
For practitioners, the order underscores that foreign defendants do not excuse delay: plaintiffs must still exercise all reasonable diligence to attempt service within the 90-day period. A failure to respond to the show-cause order risks dismissal under Rule 41(b) and the court's inherent authority recognized in Link v. Wabash.