Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01365/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01365-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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 

~ 

FILt.D 

'2 JUL -9 2~ 

"~.: ,.­ .~ l .1 i . 

(VitR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARUSSIA SIL VA~ CASE NO. 1 Icv1365 WQH (WVG) 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

vs. 

REGENT ASSET MANAGEMENT 

SOLUTIONS, INC.; IMPERIAL 

RECOVERY PARTNERS, LLC; DOES 1 

to 25, 

Defendants. 

HAYES, Judge: 

On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint.l (ECF No.1). 

On October 3~ 2011, the summons was returned executed on behalf of Defendants Regent 

Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. On November 4, 

2011, the.Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants Regent Asset Management 

Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. Since November 4, 2011, the docket 

reflects that no action has been taken by either party in this case with regards to Defendants 

Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc and Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC. 

On June 4,2012, this court issued an Order stating: 

Pursuant to Local Rule 41.1, "[a]ctions or proceedings which 

have been pending in this court for more than six months, without any 

1 Plaintiff asserted claims against Defendants Regent Asset Management Solutions~ Inc, 

Imperial Recovery Partners, LLC, Dennis Scott Carruthers, and Dennis Scott Carruthers, 

Attorneys at law. On February 8, 2012, Dennis Scott Carruthers and Dennis Scott Carruthers, 

Attorneys at law were dismissed with prejudice from this action. 

- 1 - llcv1365-WQH-WVG 

Case 3:11-cv-01365-WQH-WVG Document 18 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 2
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

proceeding or discovery having been taken therein during such period, 

may, after notice, be dIsmissed by the court for want of prosecution." 

S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 41.1; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It 

appearing to the Court that dismissal for want of prosecution may be 

appropriate in this case, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW 

CAUSE as to why this case should not be dIsmissed without prejudice 

for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiffshall file a written response to this ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE on or before July 5, 2012. If Plaintiff does not respond, the 

Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. 

7 (ECF No. 17 at 1-2). 

8 To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a written response to the ORDER TO SHOW 

9 II CAUSE. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

11 

1211 Dated: z6dZ13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

-2- llcv1365-WQH-WVG 

Case 3:11-cv-01365-WQH-WVG Document 18 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 2