Heinnickel, Jr. v. Network Capital Funding Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN HEINNICKEL, JR., Case No. 25-cv-00174-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9

10 NETWORK CAPITAL FUNDING CORPORATION, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 This case was removed from state to federal court on January 6, 2025. Dkt. No. 1. Since 14 removal, plaintiff Heinnickel has made no filings. On January 13, 2025, defendant JPMorgan 15 Chase filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dkt No. 7. Plaintiff has not 16 responded to the motion to dismiss, and JPMorgan Chase filed a reply noting plaintiff’s failure to 17 respond by the deadline. Dkt. No. 11. 18 Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to 19 prosecute or comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); 20 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal should only be 21 ordered when the failure to comply is unreasonable. See id. A district court should afford the 22 litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 23 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff Heinnickel is therefore ordered to show cause why this action 24 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s response must be filed by March 5, 25 2025. Further, the clerk of court is ordered to vacate the motion to dismiss hearing until further 26 notice. 27 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: February 5, 2025 leo~ 4 ag bom P. Casey Piffs 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28