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

Case No. SACV 24-01202-FWS (DFMx) Date September 4, 2024 Title Marquise Bailey v. Yoseph T. Tesfalidet et al

Present: The Honorable FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Melissa H. Kunig Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present Proceedings: (INCHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION is the plaintiff's responsibility to move a case toward a merits disposition.” Thomas v. Kernan,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2019) (citing Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co.,

(9th Cir. 1991)). That includes timely serving the complaint and filing a proof of Absent a showing of good cause, “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action.”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Here, 90 days have passed since Plaintiff filed the Complaint, yet no proof of service has been filed. Accordingly, the court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than September 11, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative toa response by Plaintiff, the court will consider as an appropriate response to this OSC the filing one of the following on or before the above date: 1. A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41) as to Defendant Roger L. Hughes as Trustee of The R&B Hughes Trust, or 2. A Proof of Service of the Summons and Complaint. However, if the deadline to answer has passed by the time Plaintiff files the proof of service, the response to this Order will be deemed sufficient only if one of the following is also filed: a. Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default as to Defendants or Defendants’ Answer(s), b. stipulation extending Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint that complies with Local Rule 8.3, or c. A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41) as to ali Defendants. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the court. The Order will submitted upon the filing of a timely and appropriate response. Failure to file a timely and appropriate response to this Order may result in dismissal without further notice or order from the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L. R. 41-6; Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiffs action with prejudice because of his failure to

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

Case No. SACV 24-01202-FWS (DFMx) Date September 4, 2024 Title Marquise Bailey v. Yoseph T. Tesfalidet et al prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

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

(9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

Initials of Deputy Clerk =mku