Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ronisha L. Hayes v. Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, et al., No. 5:26-cv-02121-AB-DTB, is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 21, 2026, the court issued two-page civil minutes (Document 30) reflecting in-chambers proceedings before United States District Judge André Birotte Jr., with no attorneys appearing for either plaintiff or defendant. The minutes address an order to show cause regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution, issued on the court's own motion rather than in response to any party's filing.
The procedural history identified in the order is narrow and specific. On September 25, 2026, Hayes filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. Defendant Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC did not answer that pleading, yet Hayes failed to request entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). The court treated that unmet procedural step as the inactivity prompting its action, citing Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), for the inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion.
The order does not describe the underlying claims, does not resolve their merits, and does not set a hearing or impose any sanction. It is a docket-screening directive aimed at prosecution inactivity, not an adjudication of the dispute between Hayes and Cemex.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Hayes to show cause in writing, on or before October 30, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The order invokes Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), for the court's inherent authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion, and states that the matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Hayes's response, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.
The order warns that failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. It also identifies two ways Hayes can satisfy the order: seeking entry of default against Cemex or dismissing the operative complaint. The directive is therefore a show-cause order, not an order actually dismissing the action, entering default, or adjudicating any claim.
Because the directive is conditional, the case remains pending unless and until Hayes fails to respond or the court later determines that dismissal is warranted. The two-page minute order concludes 'IT IS SO ORDERED' and leaves open whether Hayes will seek default, dismiss the operative complaint, or offer another written explanation.
Key Takeaways
- Hayes must file a written response by October 30, 2026, explaining why her action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- The court acted on its own motion under its inherent authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution, as recognized in Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962).
- Hayes may satisfy the order by seeking entry of default against Cemex under Rule 55(a) or by dismissing the operative complaint.
- Failure to respond by the deadline will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action.
- The matter stands submitted upon the written response under Rule 78, with no hearing scheduled and no merits of Hayes's claims decided.
Why It Matters
The order places the responsibility on Hayes to address the identified inactivity and makes the consequence of silence explicit: nonresponse operates as consent to dismissal. It gives her concrete procedural options while leaving the ultimate disposition of the case open, and it does not prejudge how the court will rule after considering any response.
Because this is a show-cause directive rather than a final dismissal, the document does not determine whether Hayes will seek default, dismiss the complaint, or offer another explanation, and it resolves nothing about the merits of the underlying dispute between the parties.