Little v. Edward Wolff & Associates LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 WILLIAM LITTLE and AMY LITTLE, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00227-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. There has been no activity of record in this 17 case since the Clerk’s entry of default as to Defendant Edward Wolff & Associates LLC on May 18 20, 2022. Dkt. No. 10. 19 Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche 20 Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do 21 not litigate their case, see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, 22 at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases 23 and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their 24 1 inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 2 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962). 3 The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed 4 for failure to prosecute within 21 days of this Order. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of

5 the case without prejudice. 6 Dated this 12th day of January, 2023. 7 A 8 Lauren King United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23