Esmeralda Garcia De Martinez v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 23-3211-MWF (MRWx) Date: January 26, 2024 Title: Esmeralda Garcia De Martinez, et al. v. CRST Expedited, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, USS. District Judge Deputy Clerk: Court Reporter: Rita Sanchez Not Reported Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On January 10, 2024, the Court granted Defendant CRST Expedited, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Pretrial and Trial Dates (the “Prior Order”). (Docket No. 23). The Prior Order set the deadline to exchange initial disclosures to January 24, 2024. (Ud. at 2). The Prior Order also instructed Defendant to file a notice of non- compliance if Plaintiffs failed to provide their initial disclosures by the deadline. (/d.). On January 25, 2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Compliance, informing the Court that Plaintiffs failed to provide their initial disclosures as required under the Prior Order. (Docket No. 24). As such, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE (“OSC”), in writing, by no later than February 7, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and/or failure to prosecute under Federal Rule 41(b). See Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6)[.]” (citations omitted)); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962) (“[A] District Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute|.]’’). Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to the OSC by February 7, 2024, will result in dismissal of this action. No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78: Local Rule 7-15. IT IS SO ORDERED. CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL