Gilbert v. Rashid ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN GILBERT, Case No. 1:22-cv-00674-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 13 v. ORDER SETTING DEADLINE TO FILE 14 HAROON AL RASHID, MOTON FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR SHOW CAUSE 15 Defendant. DECEMBER 22, 2022 DEADLINE 16 17 18 19 This matter comes before the court sua sponte. On August 31, 2022, Plaintiff requested 20 entry of default as to Defendant Haroon Al Rashid. (Doc. No. 6). A Clerk’s Entry of Default was 21 entered the same day. (Doc. No. 7). Almost three months have passed and Plaintiff has not 22 moved for default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Although Rule 55(b) does not specify 23 a time within which a plaintiff must move for a default judgment, Rule 1 places an affirmative 24 duty on both the court and counsel to ensure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” determinations of 25 federal cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; see Harvey v. United States, 685 F.3d 939, 946 (10th Cir. 2012) 26 (a plaintiff must promptly move for default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55); see also Branded 27 Online Inc. v. Holden LLC, No. SA CV 15-0390-DOC (DFMx), 2016 WL 8849024, at *1 (C.D. 28 Cal. Jan. 8, 2016) (requiring plaintiff to file Rule 55(b)(2) motion by date specific or face 1 | dismissal). 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 3 1. In light of the Clerk’s Entry of Default, the Initial Scheduling Conference Set for 4 February 16, 2023 at 10:30 AM (Doc. No. 3) is VACATED. 5 2. If Plaintiff so desires, Plaintiff shall file a motion for default judgment pursuant to 6 Rule 55(b)(2) on or before December 22, 2022 or show cause why the Court should 7 not dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. 8 ” | Dated: _ November 22, 2022 law Th. Doareh Hack 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28