Northwest Laborers-Employers Health & Security Trust v. Coria Landscape Inc

W.D. Washington

Northwest Laborers-Employers Health & Security Trust v. Coria Landscape Inc

DecidedMay 1, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00782

StatusUnknown

This text of Northwest Laborers-Employers Health & Security Trust v. Coria Landscape Inc (Northwest Laborers-Employers Health & Security Trust v. Coria Landscape Inc) 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

Northwest Laborers-Employers Health & Security Trust v. Coria Landscape Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 NORTHWEST CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00782-LK 11 LABORERS−EMPLOYERS HEALTH & SECURITY TRUST et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 CORIA LANDSCAPE INC., 15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 4, 18 2024, naming Coria Landscape, Inc. as Defendant. Dkt. No. 1. The Court issued summons on June 19 6, 2024. Dkt. No. 2. In the intervening months, no proof of service has been filed and Coria 20 Landscape, Inc. has not appeared. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 22 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against 23 that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” In addition, plaintiffs have a 24 general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 1 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do not litigate their case, 2 see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, at *3 (W.D. Wash. 3 Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid 4 congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their inherent power

5 to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 6 (1962); see also, e.g., Ville v. Meridian at Stone Creek Assisted Living, No. C17-913-MJP, 2017 7 WL 4700340, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2017). More than 90 days have passed since the 8 complaint was filed, and there is no indication that Plaintiffs have served Coria Landscape, Inc., 9 nor have they filed anything in this case since June 2024. 10 The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause within 21 days of this Order why the 11 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to serve. If they timely serve 12 copies of the summons and complaint and file proof of the same, the Court will discharge this 13 Order. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. 14 Dated this 1st day of May, 2025.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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 NORTHWEST CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00782-LK 11 LABORERS−EMPLOYERS HEALTH & SECURITY TRUST et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 CORIA LANDSCAPE INC., 15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 4, 18 2024, naming Coria Landscape, Inc. as Defendant. Dkt. No. 1. The Court issued summons on June 19 6, 2024. Dkt. No. 2. In the intervening months, no proof of service has been filed and Coria 20 Landscape, Inc. has not appeared. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 22 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against 23 that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” In addition, plaintiffs have a 24 general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 1 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do not litigate their case, 2 see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, at *3 (W.D. Wash. 3 Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid 4 congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their inherent power

5 to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 6 (1962); see also, e.g., Ville v. Meridian at Stone Creek Assisted Living, No. C17-913-MJP, 2017 7 WL 4700340, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2017). More than 90 days have passed since the 8 complaint was filed, and there is no indication that Plaintiffs have served Coria Landscape, Inc., 9 nor have they filed anything in this case since June 2024. 10 The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause within 21 days of this Order why the 11 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to serve. If they timely serve 12 copies of the summons and complaint and file proof of the same, the Court will discharge this 13 Order. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. 14 Dated this 1st day of May, 2025.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Northwest Laborers-Employers Health & Security Trust v. Coria Landscape Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northwest-laborers-employers-health-security-trust-v-coria-landscape-inc-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack