Che v. GFROERER, A California limited partnership

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 8 NGOC LAM CHE, Case No. 19-cv-06891-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 10 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 11 GFROERER, Defendant.

v 14 Plaintiff Ngoc Lam Che filed the present action on October 23, 2019. Dkt. No. 1.

O || Pursuant to General Order 56, the parties’ last day to conduct a joint site inspection was February Q 16 || 5, 2020 and Mr. Che’s last day to file a notice of need for mediation was March 18, 2020. Dkt.

17 || No.5. Mr. Che did not file a notice of need for mediation, nor did he seek relief from the March || 18 deadline.

19 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 21 (1962). Mr. Che is directed to file a written response to this order by April 3, 2020 and show || cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: March 26, 2020 . 28 26 nigga, Me □□□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 27 United States Magistrate Judge