(PS)Trinchitella v. Performance Realty Management, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 RONALD F. TRINCHITELLA, Case No. 2:15-cv-02365-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On September 28, 2023, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment without 19 prejudice. ECF No. 92. Since that date, this case has remained inactive. 20 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 21 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 22 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 23 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 24 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss 25 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure 26 to comply with local rules. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 27 (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 28 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause within seven days of 2 | the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 3

Dated: _ September 3, 2024 Q————. 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28