Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias filed a civil action against La Poubelle, Inc. and Francoise Koster in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:26-cv-08117. On October 28, 2026, Judge Stephen V. Wilson issued a chambers civil minute order, with no counsel appearing, directing the plaintiff to explain the lack of progress in the case. The order is a docket-management step. It does not address the merits of the plaintiff's claims, and the minutes do not describe them.
The order states that the defendants did not answer the complaint, yet the plaintiff has not requested entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). The form order recites that a time period 'has not been met,' and the checked box identifies the missing default request as the deficiency. The court cited Link v. Wabash R. 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 minutes do not state when the complaint was filed or served or which deadline the court applied, so those facts are not established by this document.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not dismiss the case. It ordered the plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before November 4, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The matter will stand submitted once the response is filed, so no hearing is set, and the order cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. The order warns that failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action.
The order states how the plaintiff can satisfy it: by seeking entry of default against the non-answering defendants or by dismissing the complaint. Because it only requires a response, it is an interim directive rather than a final judgment, and no dismissal, with or without prejudice, has been entered. The minutes make no findings about prejudice to the defendants or fault by the plaintiff, and they do not say what form of dismissal would follow a failure to respond. Whether the plaintiff responded, sought default, or dismissed the case is not shown in the materials.
Key Takeaways
- A federal court may order a plaintiff to show cause on its own motion why a case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, citing its inherent power under Link v. Wabash R. Co.
- When defendants have not answered, this court expected the plaintiff to request entry of default under Rule 55(a) rather than leave the case idle.
- The order to show cause is not itself a dismissal; it gives the plaintiff until November 4, 2026, to respond in writing.
- Silence carries a cost, because the order states that failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action.
- The order names two ways to comply, seeking entry of default or dismissing the complaint, so it identifies concrete cures for the deficiency.
Why It Matters
This minute order is a routine but instructive example of how Central District judges police cases in which defendants have not appeared. Its legal content is limited to two authorities: Link, cited for the court's inherent power to dismiss on its own motion, and Rule 55(a), which governs entry of default. The order does not analyze factors a court might weigh before an involuntary dismissal, because it does not impose one. Any later dismissal would depend on the plaintiff's response and on a further ruling that is not part of this record.
For litigants, the practical point is that a defendant's failure to answer does not move the case forward on its own. The first step is the plaintiff's request for entry of default, and the court treats the absence of that request as a lack of prosecution. Entry of default is also only a preliminary step, and a default judgment would require a separate application that this order does not address. The order is an unpublished chambers minute entry with no precedential weight; its value is as an illustration of the court's expectations and of the short response window it can set. Counsel who receive a comparable order should respond by the stated date, either by showing why the delay is justified or by taking the identified corrective step.