Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions
CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208634 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on June 4, 2026 to Plaintiff Christine L. Seraquiel, in pro per, for failure to timely serve all defendants as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b) and failure to timely seek entry of default as required by CRC 3.110(g). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.”
CRC 3.110(b). The Complaint in this matter was filed on September 8, 2025 and a valid Proof of Service of Summons has not been filed for Defendant Shaun Michael Carpenter. Proof of Service of Summons was filed for Defendant Jeffery Del Vecchio on September 22, 2025, however, no Request for Entry of Default has been filed. “If a responsive pleading is not served within the time limits specified in this rule and no extension of time has been granted, the plaintiff must file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service has elapsed.”
CRC 3.110(g). Plaintiff did not file a written response to the Order to Show Cause.
Without sufficient excuse for the delays, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250 against Plaintiff, in pro per. The clerk is directed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to timely serve per CRC 3.110(b), failure to timely seek entry of default per CRC 9
3.110(g), and failure to timely prosecute. Hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal will be on Monday September 14, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63. The clerk is directed to prepare the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal.
WIEMERS, ET AL. VS. HOERNING, ET AL.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”