Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01204/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01204-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacquie Perez
Defendant
Sun Serenity Spa
Defendant
Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUN SERENITY SPA and JACQUIE 

PEREZ,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01204-DAD-SMS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On October 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment on its claims for 

trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., and unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code 

§ 17200. (Doc. No. 13.) On February 12, 2016, plaintiff’s motion was denied without prejudice 

after the undersigned and the magistrate judge to whom the matter was referred determined 

plaintiff had failed to set forth sufficient facts demonstrating irreparable harm. (Doc. No. 20.) 

More than ninety days have elapsed since that order was issued. No further motions have been 

filed by plaintiff, and no further hearings or deadlines are currently scheduled in the case. 

Therefore, the court now issues this order to show cause as to why the matter should not be 

dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 

393, 400 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The district court has the inherent power sua sponte to dismiss a case 

for lack of prosecution.”) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Case 1:15-cv-01204-DAD-SMS Document 21 Filed 05/25/16 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

Therefore, within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, plaintiff must respond in 

writing showing cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

This writing must include a reasonable date by which plaintiff intends to file any further motions 

for entry of default judgment. The undersigned reminds plaintiff any such motions must be fully 

supported, as outlined in this court’s prior orders. Failure to respond to this order to show cause 

or to establish a reasonable date by which plaintiff will file any subsequent motions for entry of 

default judgment may result in this case being dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01204-DAD-SMS Document 21 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2