1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTURO PINTO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00664-BAS-AHG 12 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 14 CBE GROUP, INC., CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court following Plaintiff’s failure to appear for the 18 Telephonic Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) and Case Management 19 Conference (“CMC”) held on November 18, 2019. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff previously failed 20 to appear for the in-person ENE and CMC held on October 15, 2019. ECF No. 16. 21 As set forth in the Court’s previous Order continuing the ENE and CMC, Plaintiff 22 has consistently demonstrated that he has no interest in prosecuting this case. Indeed, 23 Plaintiff’s attorney withdrew from his representation on September 17, 2019 because 24 Plaintiff’s “fail[ure] to participate in the prosecution of this case” prevented his counsel 25 from fulfilling her duties. See ECF No. 11 at 3. Since Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew, both 26 the Court and counsel for Defendant have attempted to reach Plaintiff numerous times to 27 no avail. After Plaintiff failed to appear for the first ENE and CMC, the Court continued 28 the ENE and CMC but set them telephonically to avoid unfairness to Defendant given the 1 || cost of in-person attendance by Defendant’s counsel and representative, who do not live or 2 || work locally. The Court also warned Plaintiff that, should he fail to appear once more, the 3 Court would immediately recommend that the District Judge sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’ s 4 ||case for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See ECF No. 17. In the interim, 5 Court managed to leave a voicemail for Plaintiff with detailed instructions on how to 6 || attend the ENE and CMC telephonically in case he had not reviewed the Orders that have 7 mailed to him at his address of record. On the other occasions when the Court 8 || attempted contact, Plaintiff's mailbox was full and unable to receive messages. 9 In consideration of the procedural history just outlined, and in accordance with its 10 |/prior warning to Plaintiff, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Court 11 ||DISMISS Plaintiff's case WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. See Link v. 12 || Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file written objections with the 14 ||Court and serve a copy on Defendant no later than December 6, 2019. The document 15 ||should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Defendant may file a 16 Reply to the Objections by December 13, 2019. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: November 19, 2019 19 _ArwiorwH. Xyolard Honorable Allison H. Goddard 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28