1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 HANNAH H. KNOERZER, Case No. 5:23-cv-00104-FLA (DTBx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. THE COURT SHOULD NOT DISMISS THE ACTION FOR LACK 14 OF PROSECUTION HOSPITALITY STAFFING 15 SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 ORDER 20 On February 24, 2023, the parties filed a document titled: “Stipulation to [1] 21 Compel Plaintiff’s Individual Claims to Arbitration, [2] Dismiss Class Claims 22 Without Prejudice and [3] Stay Proceedings Pending Completion of Arbitration” 23 (“Stipulation”). Dkt. 15 (brackets in original). 24 On February 28, 2023, the court approved the Stipulation (“February 28 25 Order”) and ordered Plaintiff Hannah H. Knoerzer (“Plaintiff”) to submit her 26 individual claims against Defendants to arbitration. Dkt. 17 at 2. The parties were 27 further ordered to “meet and confer in good faith to select a mutually-agreeable 28 arbitrator prior to Plaintiff’s submission of her Demand for Arbitration to the 1 | American Arbitration Association (AAA)....” Jd. The court dismissed Plaintiffs 2 | uncertified claims of putative class members, as defined in the First Amended 3 || Complaint, and stayed the remaining non-individual PAGA claims pending 4 | completion of the arbitration. Jd. at 2-3. 5 On December 27, 2023, the court ordered the parties to file a Joint Status 6 | Report regarding the status of the arbitration. Dkt. 18. 7 On January 25, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Status Report re: Arbitration, 8 || stating only that the parties “have agreed to mediate this matter, on September 27, 9 | 2024.” Dkt. 19 at 1. The parties did not state or present evidence to establish they 10 | met and conferred to select a mutually-agreeable arbitrator or initiated arbitration 11 | proceedings, as ordered. 12 Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 13 | fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why the court should not dismiss this 14 | action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure comply with the court’s 15 | February 28 Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co.,

, 16 | 630-33 (1962). Failure to respond timely may result in the dismissal of this action 17 | without further notice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: March 29, 2024 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28