Marvin Tadashi Matsuda, et al. v. Kush Modi, et al.

D. Nevada

Marvin Tadashi Matsuda, et al. v. Kush Modi, et al.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided January 6, 2026·No. 2:24-cv-02247·Unknown

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA Marvin Tadashi Matsuda, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02247-CDS-BNW

Plaintiffs Notice of Intent to Dismiss Under Local Rule 41-1 v.

Kush Modi, et al.,

Defendants

Plaintiffs Marvin Matsuda and Lucinda Shea initiated this action against Kush Modi and the Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine after the unfortunate passing of Margaret Yayoe Matsuda. ECF No. 1. After the clerk issued a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for lack of service, the plaintiffs filed the executed summons on March 24, 2025. ECF No. 10. Since that time, there has been no proceeding of record. This district’s Local Rules provide for dismissal of an action for want of prosecution: All civil actions that have been pending in this Court for more than 270 days without any proceeding of record having been taken may, after notice, be dismissed for want of prosecution by the court sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or pro se party. LR 41-1. Further, it is within the inherent power and discretion of the court to sua sponte dismiss a civil case for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The authority of the court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has traditionally been considered an “inherent power” of the court, manage their affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to move its action toward disposition at a reasonable pace. Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991). It is the Court’s responsibility to manage its docket. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets”). 1 Thus, this order serves as notice that the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice 2} for failure to prosecute unless the plaintiffs take action. Continued failure to reasonably 3 prosecute will result in dismissal without prejudice, without further notice, on January 20, 2026. /, ) 5 Dated: January 6, 2026 LZ 6 . ai UnitédAtates District Judge 8 9 ll

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DISTRICT OF NEVADA Marvin Tadashi Matsuda, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02247-CDS-BNW

Plaintiffs Notice of Intent to Dismiss Under Local Rule 41-1 v.

Kush Modi, et al.,

Defendants

Plaintiffs Marvin Matsuda and Lucinda Shea initiated this action against Kush Modi and the Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine after the unfortunate passing of Margaret Yayoe Matsuda. ECF No. 1. After the clerk issued a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for lack of service, the plaintiffs filed the executed summons on March 24, 2025. ECF No. 10. Since that time, there has been no proceeding of record. This district’s Local Rules provide for dismissal of an action for want of prosecution: All civil actions that have been pending in this Court for more than 270 days without any proceeding of record having been taken may, after notice, be dismissed for want of prosecution by the court sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or pro se party. LR 41-1. Further, it is within the inherent power and discretion of the court to sua sponte dismiss a civil case for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The authority of the court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has traditionally been considered an “inherent power” of the court, manage their affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to move its action toward disposition at a reasonable pace. Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991). It is the Court’s responsibility to manage its docket. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets”). 1 Thus, this order serves as notice that the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice 2} for failure to prosecute unless the plaintiffs take action. Continued failure to reasonably 3 prosecute will result in dismissal without prejudice, without further notice, on January 20, 2026. /, ) 5 Dated: January 6, 2026 LZ 6 . ai UnitédAtates District Judge 8 9 ll

Marvin Tadashi Matsuda, et al. v. Kush Modi, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

Marvin Tadashi Matsuda, et al. v. Kush Modi, et al. (Marvin Tadashi Matsuda, et al. v. Kush Modi, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related