Cupp v. Fintech
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-07479
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Ronald Cupp v. TA Fintech, Inc., Judge Hixson ordered Cupp to explain by December 24 why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it.
Ronald Cupp, whose case was placed at risk of dismissal unless he responded to the court's order by December 24, 2025; TA Fintech, Inc., the defendant, is also affected because the case may be dismissed if Cupp does not respond.
What happened
In Ronald Cupp v. TA Fintech, Inc., the court had previously ordered Ronald Cupp to submit additional materials after vacating a hearing on his pending request for a default judgment. Cupp did not respond by the December 1 deadline.
The court ordered Cupp to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it and for not following court deadlines. It also required him to file a declaration and a supplemental brief by December 24, 2025.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson warned that failing to respond in writing would be treated as an admission that Cupp did not intend to continue the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Cupp v. Fintech · No. 3:25-cv-07479
- Thomas Hixson
- Dec. 10, 2025
Background
On November 17, 2025, the court vacated the hearing on Plaintiff Ronald Cupp's pending motion for default judgment. The court directed Cupp to file a supplemental declaration by December 1, 2025. The opinion states that Cupp failed to respond.
Order to Show Cause
The court explained that it has authority to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court orders. It therefore ordered Cupp to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines.
Cupp must file a declaration by December 24, 2025, and must simultaneously file a supplemental brief complying with the court's November 13 order. The court warned that failing to file a written response would be treated as an admission that Cupp did not intend to prosecute the case and that the case would likely be dismissed.
Disposition
Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued an order to show cause and set a December 24, 2025 response deadline. The order did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.