Melanie Davis v. Dhoor 2 LLC, et al. — Court Orders Plaintiff to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Prosecution

Case
Melanie Davis v. Dhoor 2 LLC, et al.
Court
U.S. District Court — Central District of California
Judge
André Birotte Jr.
Date decided
2026-10-28
Docket No.
2:26-cv-10788
Topics
order to show cause, dismissal for lack of prosecution, failure to prosecute, entry of default, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), inherent power, Link v. Wabash
Source
Mirrored from lexcalifornia.com

Disposition notice

On October 28, 2026, Judge André Birotte Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an in-chambers order requiring plaintiff Melanie Davis to show cause, in writing, on or before November 6, 2026, why her case against Dhoor 2 LLC and Happys Market should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The court explained that the defendants were served with the complaint on September 29, 2026, and their responses were due October 20, 2026, but they did not answer — and Davis failed to request entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), the court noted its inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion. Davis can satisfy the order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint; failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal. The matter will stand submitted upon the filing of the plaintiff's response.

Read the public order

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top