CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 22-2865-MWF(GJSx) Date: September 14, 2023 Title: Maria T. Balestreri, et al. v. Universal City Studios, LLC, et al. Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge

Deputy Clerk: Court Reporter: Rita Sanchez Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: None Present None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On March 1, 2023, the Court granted the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed by attorney Donald Hiney. (See Motion, Docket No. 21, and Minute Order, Docket No. 24). The Court also issued a Self-Representation Order because Plaintiffs Maria and Thomas Balestreri were proceeding pro se. On August 23, 2023, Defendant Universal City Studios, LLC filed a Motion in Limine, a Declaration of Jaion Chung Re: Defendant’s Pretrial Documents; a Status Report Re: Settlement, and a Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law. (Docket Nos. 26 to 29). The Court filed an Order to Show Cause (the “OSC”) the same day. (Docket No. 30). The Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and directed Plaintiffs to review the Selt- Representation Order. The Court further vacated the Final Pretrial Conference and hearing on Defendant’s Motion in Limine, and the Jury Trial. (See OSC at 2). The Court ordered chambers staff to serve the OSC on Plaintiffs by email and first-class mail. The deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to the OSC was September 8, 2023. As of September 13, 2023, Plaintiffs have not filed a response or any documents responsive to the OSC. It is well-established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action due to her failure to prosecute and/or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. ______________________________________________________________________________ CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 22-2865-MWF(GJSx) Date: September 14, 2023 Title: Maria T. Balestreri, et al. v. Universal City Studios, LLC, et al. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

, 629–30 (1962) (noting that district court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in district court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (stating that district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the court). Before ordering dismissal, the Court must consider five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to Defendant; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See In re Eisen,

(9th Cir. 1994) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61 (failure to comply with court orders). Taking all of these factors into account, dismissal for lack of prosecution is warranted. Plaintiffs were specifically warned that failure to respond to the OSC would result in dismissal of this action. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________________________________________________