1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 22-cv-00360-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 Re: ECF 39, 59 10 ONE LEGAL LLC, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 The Court held a case management conference in this matter on October 26, 2022, via 14 videoconference. ECF 59. Notice of the case management conference was issued on September 15 20, 2022, by clerk’s notice to pro se plaintiff George Jarvis Austin at the email address he 16 registered with this Court’s electronic case filing system. ECF 39. Mr. Austin did not appear at 17 the case management conference and is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this action 18 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 19 On October 19, 2022, Mr. Austin filed an administrative motion requesting a continuance 20 of the case management conference on grounds that he did not receive notice of the case 21 management conference and that he was unavailable due to his work schedule. ECF 47. The 22 Court denied plaintiff’s first administrative motion as it was untimely under Civil Local Rule 6-1 23 and 6-2. ECF 51. 24 Subsequent to the Court’s order, Mr. Austin filed three identical administrative motions to 25 reschedule the case management conference. ECF 52, 54, 55. The Court notes that plaintiff’s 26 second administrative motion still does not conform to Civil Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2. 27 Plaintiff asserts that the case management conference should have been continued because 1 notification of defendant’s appearance in the case is irrelevant to the clerk’s notice of the case 2 management conference on September 20, 2022. Nonetheless, Mr. Austin should have anticipated 3 defendant’s appearance in the case because he filed the executed proof of service of summons on 4 the court’s electronic case failing system on October 19, 2022—the same day that he received 5 defense counsel’s email notifying him of defendant’s appearance and their intention to attend the 6 case management conference. ECF 49. The Court finds that plaintiff was not prejudiced if he did 7 not receive notification of defendant’s appearance through the ECF system because he received 8 notice from counsel on the same day. 9 Second, Mr. Austin seeks an ADA accommodation to continue the case management 10 conference. The Court website provides that, “[a]lthough the United States Courts are not subject 11 to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it is the Court’s police to remove disability-related 12 barriers to court services by providing reasonable accommodations.” See United States District 13 Court Norther District of California, Visitors with Disabilities & Special Needs webpage 14 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/about/locations/access/. The Court provides accommodations 15 related to wheelchair access, visual and hearing impairments, and lactating people. The clerk’s 16 notice of the case management conference states that it will be held via videoconference. ECF 39. 17 Therefore, no ADA accommodations were necessary since plaintiff was not required to physically 18 appear in court. More to the point, Mr. Austin’s request falls outside the scope of ADA 19 accommodations provided by this Court. 20 Based on Mr. Austin’s nonappearance at the case management conference, the 21 administrative motion to continue the conference is now rendered moot. ECF 52, 54, 55. 22 Nonetheless, the Court is unpersuaded by plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, because of plaintiff’s 23 nonappearance at the case management conference, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE 24 as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their actions. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure Rule 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or 27 to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962); McKeever v. 1 failure to comply is unreasonable. See Jd. A district court should afford the litigant prior notice of 2 its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 3 1987). 4 NOTICE is hereby given that a hearing on the Order to Show Cause will be held on 5 December 13,2022 at 2 p.m. in courtroom 9 at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 19th Floor, San 6 || Francisco, California. Plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause is due to be filed on or 7 before by November 18, 2022. 8 This order terminates ECF No. 52, 54, 55. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 28, 2022 11 12 ( y : ep □□ TRINA L: PSON 13 United States District Judge © 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28