Abel Orozco v. Henry Aguila

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Abel Orozco v. Henry Aguila

Trial Court Opinion

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 2:22-cv-05526-FWS-AFM Date: August 4, 2023 Title: Abel Orozco et al v. Henry Aguila et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

On September 27, 2022, the court stayed the action pending the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings in Case No. 2:22-bk-15087-VZ, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. (Dkt. 32.) On the same day, the court ordered the parties to file a status report every ninety (90) days regarding the status of the bankruptcy proceedings. (Id.) On December 28, 2022, the parties filed their first joint status report. (Dkt. 33.) On March 29, 2023, the parties filed their second joint status report. (Dkt. 34.) As of the date of this Order, more than ninety days have passed since the parties’ last filing, and the parties have not filed any subsequent joint status reports. (See generally, Dkt.)

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS the parties to show cause in writing no later than August 18, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The parties may discharge the Order to Show Cause by filing a joint status report that complies with the court’s September 27, 2022, Order. Failure to adequately comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 629

(1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

403 F.3d 683, 689

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

739 F.2d 493, 496

(9th Cir. ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 2:22-cv-05526-FWS-AFM Date: August 4, 2023 Title: Abel Orozco et al v. Henry Aguila et al. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

____________________________________________________________________________

Reference

Status
Unknown