Michael Rhambo v. ASI El Monte, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-2061-DMG (Ex) Date June 15, 2023

Title Michael Rhambo v. ASI El Monte, LLC Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NONE REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

On June 7, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than June 14, 2023, why the above-entitled action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response and the deadline to respond has passed.

Courts have discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss actions without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing that a court may dismiss an action for failure to “prosecute or comply with these rules or a court order”); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute.”). “The district court [is] required to weigh several factors in determining whether to dismiss [a] case for lack of prosecution: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986).

Having considered these factors, the Court concludes that this case is appropriate for dismissal. The Court therefore DISMISSES this action without prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 4(m) for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.