UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 22-2202 JGB (SP) Date November 28, 2023 Title Brenda Henry v. Frontline Asset Strategies, 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 December 13, 2022, plaintiff Brenda Henry (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendant Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC (“Defendant”). (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On January 31, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, including all four claims. (“MTD,” Dkt. No. 11.) On February 13, 2023, Plaintiff opposed. (Dkt. No. 14.) On February 21, 2023, Defendant replied. (Dkt. No. 15.) On August 9, 2023, the Court granted the MTD in its entirety and granted Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint no later than August 18, 2023. (Dkt. No. 35.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or any other responsive pleading. As such, there are no remaining viable claims in the instant matter.

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,

(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). 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 and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.