Masonry Security Plan of Washington v. Hallin

W.D. Washington

Masonry Security Plan of Washington v. Hallin

DecidedJanuary 12, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00218

StatusUnknown

This text of Masonry Security Plan of Washington v. Hallin (Masonry Security Plan of Washington v. Hallin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Masonry Security Plan of Washington v. Hallin, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MASONRY SECURITY PLAN OF CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00218-LK 11 WASHINGTON et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Plaintiffs, v. 13 BRIAN SCOTT HALLIN and SARAH 14 LEA HALLIN, 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. There has been no activity of record in this 18 case since the Clerk’s entry of default as to Defendants Brian Scott Hallin and Sara Lea Hallin on 19 June 13, 2022. Dkt. No. 10. 20 Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche 21 Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do 22 not litigate their case, see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, 23 at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases 24 and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their 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

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MASONRY SECURITY PLAN OF CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00218-LK 11 WASHINGTON et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Plaintiffs, v. 13 BRIAN SCOTT HALLIN and SARAH 14 LEA HALLIN, 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. There has been no activity of record in this 18 case since the Clerk’s entry of default as to Defendants Brian Scott Hallin and Sara Lea Hallin on 19 June 13, 2022. Dkt. No. 10. 20 Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche 21 Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do 22 not litigate their case, see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, 23 at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases 24 and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Masonry Security Plan of Washington v. Hallin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masonry-security-plan-of-washington-v-hallin-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack