Vidal Coronel v. Mercedes Benz USA LLC

Case 5:22-cv-00419-JGB-SHK Document 16 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:238

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. EDCV 22-419 JGB (SHKx) Date January 25, 2023 Title Vidal Coronel v. Mercedes Benz USA LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: Order to Show Cause re Failure to Prosecute (IN CHAMBERS) On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant. (“FAC,” Dkt. No. 13.) On May 12, 2022, the parties stipulated to extend Defendant’s time to respond to the FAC by not more than 30 days—that is, by June 10, 2022. Defendant has failed to do so.

To date, Defendant has not filed a responsive pleading.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute her case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case with reasonable diligence because their case has laid dormant for more than half a year.

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than February 3, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 1 of 1 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk mg