Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00174/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00174-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIBRALTER, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DMS FLOWERS, LLC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00174-CDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

ORDER CONTINUING THE MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

FIVE-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiffs Gibralter, LLC and Divinely, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action with the 

filing of a complaint against Defendants DMS Flowers, LLC, Maria Pantoja, Samantha Andrade, 

and Daniel Andrade (“Defendants”) on February 6, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The following day, the 

Clerk of the Court issued summonses and the Court entered an Order setting a mandatory 

scheduling conference for May 2, 2024 (the “Order”). (ECF Nos. 2, 3). The Order directed 

Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of 

service.” The Order further advised Plaintiffs that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may 

result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” To date, 

Plaintiffs have not filed proofs of service and no Defendant has appeared in the action, requiring 

the Court to reset the mandatory scheduling conference. Plaintiffs also have violated their 

Case 1:24-cv-00174-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 04/26/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

obligation under the Order to file a joint scheduling report at least one week in advance of the 

mandatory scheduling conference. (ECF No. 3 at 2).

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 

this order, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for 

their failure to prosecute this action, to serve the summonses and complaint in a timely manner, 

and to comply with the Court’s orders concerning the mandatory scheduling conference. 

Alternatively, by that same deadline, Plaintiffs may file proofs of service demonstrating the 

summonses and complaint have been served on all Defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the mandatory scheduling conference previously set 

for May 2, 2024, is CONTINUED to June 5, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

Any failure by Plaintiffs to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the 

imposition of sanctions, including financial sanctions and a recommendation to dismiss this 

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00174-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 04/26/24 Page 2 of 2