United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2024

Michael Harrison v. El Cabrito

Michael Harrison v. El Cabrito
United States District Court for the Central District of California · Decided October 8, 2024
Michael Harrison v. El Cabrito

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. SACV 24-01220-FWS (DFMx) Date October 8, 2024 Title Michael Harrison v. El Cabrito 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 “[I}t is the plaintiff's responsibility to move a case toward a merits disposition.” Thomas v. Kernan, 2019 WL 8888200, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2019) (citing Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991)). That includes, where applicable, promptly pursuing Rule 55 remedies upon the default of any defendant.

Here, Plaintiff has obtained default against Defendant(s), but has taken no further action. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than October 15, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by Plaintiff, the Court will consider as an appropriate response to this OSC the filing of one of the following on or before the above date: 1. A Motion for Default Judgment (Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)) as to al! Defendants, or 2. A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41) as to all Defendants.

No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the court. The Order will stand 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., 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. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

Initial of Deputy Clerk = mku

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.