1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BABAK MOEINOLMOLKI, et al., ) Case No. CV 24-4851 FMO (MRWx) ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 14 LONE STAR ALLIANCE, INC., et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 9, 2024 (Dkt. 1). By order dated August 27, 2024, 18 plaintiffs were ordered to show cause, on or before September 3, 2024, why this action should not 19 be dismissed for plaintiffs’ failure to complete service of the summons and complaint as required 20 by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Dkt. 9, Court’s Order of August 27, 21 2024). Plaintiffs were admonished that “[f]ailure to file a timely response to th[e] Order to Show 22 Cause shall result in the action . . . being dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to 23 comply with the orders of the court.” (Id.). As of the date of this Order, plaintiffs have not filed 24 proofs of service of the summons and complaint on any defendant. (See, generally, Dkt.). 25 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court, on its own initiative, 26 “must dismiss the action without prejudice” if service is not effected “within 90 days after the 27 complaint is filed[.]” In addition, a district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or 28 1 30,

(1962) (authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute necessary to avoid undue 2 delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 3 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any court order). 4 Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and should be imposed only after consideration of the 5 relevant factors in favor of and against this extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los 6 Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). These factors include: (1) the public’s interest in 7 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 8 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 9 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Id.; Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th 10 Cir. 1986). 11 Pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) and the Court’s inherent power to achieve the orderly and 12 expeditious disposition of cases, Link,

,

, and in light of the 13 factors outlined in

dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to effect 14 service within the specified time and comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on 15 August 27, 2024 (Dkt. 9), is appropriate. 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, 17 without prejudice, for failure to effect service and comply with the orders of this Court. 18 Dated this 12th day of September, 2024. 19 /s/ 20 Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28