Curtis J Barlows v. Tim Nguyen

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 22-2011 JGB (SPx) Date August 1, 2023 Title Curtis J. Barlows v. Tim Nguyen

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order to Show Cause (IN CHAMBERS) On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed his complaint. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service upon Defendant Tim Nguyen. (“Proof of Service,” Dkt. No. 10.) On January 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for the Clerk to enter default against Defendant Tim Nguyen. (“Default Request,” Dkt. No. 11.) On January 17, 2023, the Clerk entered default against Defendant Tim Nguyen. (“Entry of Default,” Dkt. No. 12.) Since then, there has been no activity in this case.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute her case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, it appears that Plaintiff may have failed to prosecute this case with reasonable diligence because the case has been dormant for six months.

Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before August 10, 2023 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument and the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by Plaintiff is due. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this OSC may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.