Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jerry Ong sued Steel Belted Madness, Inc. and at least one other defendant in the Central District of California. The court's October 27, 2026 minute order concerns only Steel Belted Madness, and it states that Ong has filed a proof of service as to that defendant.
The court observed that the deadline for the defendant to respond to the complaint has passed and that the plaintiff has taken no action since. The order does not say whether the defendant has appeared, when service occurred, or how the response deadline was calculated. It frames the problem as one of plaintiff responsibility, citing authority that a plaintiff must move a case toward a merits disposition. In the court's description, that duty includes promptly filing stipulations that extend a defendant's time to respond, pursuing default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 when a defendant does not timely respond, and dismissing a case the plaintiff has chosen not to pursue.
The Court’s Holding
This is an in-chambers order to show cause, not a dismissal and not a ruling on the merits. Acting on its own motion, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than October 29, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to Steel Belted Madness, Inc. The court made no finding that the case has been abandoned; it required an explanation.
The court also told the plaintiff that a written response is not the only acceptable answer. It would treat any one of three filings made by the same date as an appropriate response: a request for entry of default against 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 Rule 41 as to that defendant. No oral argument would be heard unless the court ordered it, and the order would stand submitted once a timely and appropriate response was filed.
The court warned that failure to file a timely and appropriate response may result in dismissal without further notice or order. It cited Rule 41(b), Local Rule 41-6, and Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority, including Link v. Wabash Railroad, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, and Ash v. Cvetkov, for its power to dismiss for failure to prosecute on its own initiative. The order does not state whether any later dismissal would be with or without prejudice, and the materials provided do not show how the plaintiff responded.
Key Takeaways
- A court may on its own motion order a plaintiff to explain why a case should not be dismissed when the defendant's response deadline has passed and the plaintiff has done nothing.
- The court placed the burden on the plaintiff to pursue default, secure a compliant stipulation extending time, or dismiss the defendant, rather than waiting for the defendant to act.
- In this order, a request for entry of default, a Local Rule 8.3 stipulation, or a voluntary dismissal each counted as an adequate substitute for a written response, so long as it was filed by October 29, 2026.
- The response window was only two days after the order issued, and the court warned that dismissal could follow without further notice if the plaintiff did not comply.
- Nothing has been dismissed or decided on the merits in this order, and the outcome remains open pending the plaintiff's response.
Why It Matters
The order is a routine but instructive example of case management in the Central District of California. It shows that a plaintiff who files a proof of service and then goes quiet after the defendant's response deadline can expect the court to intervene quickly, and that the court will identify concrete steps that satisfy the order, including seeking default under Rule 55.
Its weight is limited. It is an unpublished minute order from a single district judge, it resolves no contested issue, and it does not create precedent. Its practical value is as a reminder of the court's expectations under Rule 41(b) and Local Rule 41-6. What happens next is not shown in the materials provided. That includes whether the plaintiff sought default, extended the response time, or dismissed, and whether the court later dismissed the case and on what terms.