Case 2:21-cv-08593-FWS-AS Document 26 Filed 11/03/22 Pagelofi1 Page ID#:135 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. CV 21-08593-FWS (ASx) Date November 3, 2022 Title Thuy Thanh Alonzo v. California Patients Alliance, Inc. et al

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: (INCHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

The court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report filed on October 14, 2022. (Dkt. 25.) The court also observes that the parties previously filed a Notice of Joint Settlement on May 12, 2022. (Dkt. 22.) Furthermore, the court notes that although the parties stated they have “reached a solution a finalized a formal Settlement Agreement” on October 14, 2022, (see Dkt. 25 at 1), the parties have not filed any additional documents since the Joint Status Report. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by December 5, 2022, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The parties may discharge this Order to Show Cause by filing a notice of settlement and dismissing the case. Failure to comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(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.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov,

(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:

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1