Quy Truong v. RH-Lambert Brea Associates, L.P.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. SACV 22-01050-FWS (ADSx) Date April 12, 2023 Title Quy Truong v. RH-Lambert Brea Associates, L.P.

PRESENT: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Melissa H. Kunig Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: None Present None Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER SETTING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 23, 2023, the court denied Plaintiffs motion for default judgment and ordered Plaintiff to file any renewed motion for default judgment within thirty days. (Dkt. 26.) The record indicates Plaintiff did not file any renewed motion for default judgment. (See generally Dkt.) The court then ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by April 3, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. 27.) As of April 12, 2023, Plaintiff has not filed any response to the Order to Show Cause. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to appear at an in-person hearing on April 20, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 10D, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure to comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiffs action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 693, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

Initials of Deputy Clerk =mku CC: