1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRANCE MARSH, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01304-CDB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH 14 FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, THE LOCAL RULES

15 Defendant. (Doc. 17)

16 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Relevant Background 19 On March 28, 2024, Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh (“Plaintiffs”), proceeding 20 pro se, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of 21 California, County of Kern in the action titled Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh vs. Freedom 22 Mortgage, Case No. BCV24101027 (“state court action”). (Doc. 1). Defendant Freedom 23 Mortgage Corporation (“Defendant”) removed the action to this Court on October 24, 2024. (Id.). 24 On December 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint. (Doc. 13). On January 8, 25 2025, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and served the 26 motion upon Plaintiffs. (Doc. 17). Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition or statement of non- 27 opposition. 28 /// 1 Order to Show Cause 2 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 3 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 4 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 5 the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and 6 may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the 7 action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

(9th Cir. 2000). A court may dismiss 8 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local 9 rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure 10 to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

, 11 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 12

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local 13 rules). 14 Further, Local Rule 230 states in relevant part: “Opposition, if any, to the granting of the 15 motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and served no later than fourteen (14) days after the 16 motion was filed. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall 17 serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question.” E.D. Cal. 18 Local Rule 230(c). 19 Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending 20 motion, and the time to do so has now passed. 21 22 23 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

24 25 26 27 28 1 Conclusion and Order 2 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause in writing within 14 days of 3 || the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply 4 || with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiffs may file an opposition or 5 || statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss filed on January 8, 2025. 6 Any failure by Plaintiffs to respond to this Order may result in the recommendation 7 || that this action be dismissed for a failure to obey court orders and a failure to prosecute. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ January 31, 2025 | Ww Vv R~ 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28