Ana M. Hanson v. Spectrum Construction Group Inc

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:22-cv-01994-FWS-MAR Date: September 5, 2023 Title: Ana M. Hanson et al. v. Spectrum Construction Group et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiffs initiated this action on October 31, 2022, asserting one cause of action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1002 et seq., against Defendants Bisher Aljazzar and Spectrum Construction Group, Inc. (See Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 14.)

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiffs requested that the Clerk of Court enter default against both Defendants. (Dkts. 13, 14.) The Clerk entered default as to both Defendants on December 16, 2022. (Dkts. 15, 16.) Five days later, on December 21, 2022, Defendant Aljazzar filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. (Dkt. 18.) Plaintiffs then filed a motion for default judgment on January 19, 2023. (Dkt. 19.)

On January 23, 2023, the court struck Defendant Aljazzar’s motion to dismiss because Defendant was in default and had not properly appeared before the court. (Dkt. 20.) On February 15, 2023, Defendant Aljazzar filed a motion to set aside his default. (Dkt. 22.) The court granted the order on February 24, 2023. (Dkt. 23.)

On May 31, 2023, Defendant Bisher Aljazzar filed a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings,” indicating he filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. (Dkt. 32 at 3.) Based on this Notice of Stay of Proceedings, the court stayed the case as to Defendant Bisher Aljazzar. (Dkt. 33.)

____________________________________________________________________________ CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:22-cv-01994-FWS-MAR Date: September 5, 2023 Title: Ana M. Hanson et al. v. Spectrum Construction Group et al.

On July 14, 2023, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment because: (1) Plaintiffs had not adequately served Defendant Spectrum Construction Group; and (2) default judgment was premature pursuant to the rule articulated by the Supreme Court in Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (1872). (Dkt. 34 at 6-8.)

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have not filed any additional proof of service or subsequent motions for default judgment. (See generally Dkt.) Therefore, the court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute as to Defendant Spectrum Construction Group no later than October 3, 2023. Plaintiffs may also discharge this Order by filing a motion for default judgment that cures the deficiencies noted in the court’s July 14, 2023, Order.

Failure to comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 693, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

____________________________________________________________________________