Case 5:22-cv-00419-JGB-SHK Document 17 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:239 JS -6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 22-419 JGB (SHKx) Date March 10, 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 DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Prosecute (IN CHAMBERS)

On March 7, 2022, Defendant removed the case to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant. (Dkt. No. 13.) On January 25, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by February 3, 2023 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 16.) As of March 10, 2023, Plaintiff has neither continued to prosecute the case nor responded to the Court’s order to show cause.

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. 42(b); Wolff v. California,

(C.D. Cal. 2016). Plaintiffs must prosecute their cases with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case with reasonable diligence and that dismissal is therefore appropriate. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Page 1 of 1 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk mg