Adam Ghadiri v. AB Liquor Market

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Adam Ghadiri v. AB Liquor Market

Trial Court Opinion

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

Case No. 8:20-cv-01597-JWH-KESx Date March 10, 2021 Title Adam Ghadiri v. AB Liquor Market et al.

Present: The Honorable JOHN W. HOLCOMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION On December 28, 2020, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before January 11, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed with respect to each Defendant who has not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the complaint [ECF No. 30]. Also on December 28, 2020, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before January 11, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed, with respect to each Defendant who has not been served, for lack of prosecution [ECF No. 31]. On January 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response advising the Court that Plaintiff had been unable to serve defendant UKC, LLC and that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed UKC, LLC [ECF No. 33]. That response, however, did not address those defendants that had been served but had not responded to the complaint. To date, the remaining defendants—Laddi, Inc.; AB Liquor Market; and Saini Harjinder—have not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the complaint. Plaintiff’s requests for the Clerk to enter default were rejected, and the Clerk served notices of deficiencies [see ECF Nos. 21 & 27]. Despite the passage of several months and the Court’s OSC [ECF No. 30], Plaintiff has not attempted to cure these deficiencies. The Court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

403 F.3d 683, 689

(9th Cir. 2005) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to prosecute); Olsen v. Mapes,

333 F.3d 1199

, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (same). Accordingly, on its own motion, the Court hereby DISMISSES this case for lack of prosecution. The Clerk is ORDERED to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reference

Status
Unknown