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

11 JOHN WERNEGREEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-01405-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 14 GALACTIC CO., LLC, COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

15 Defendant. ORDER CONTINUING THE

MANDATORY SCHEDULING 16 CONFERENCE

17 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE OF THIS ORDER AND 18 TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

19 FIVE-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff John Wernegreen (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint 22 on November 14, 2024. (Doc. 1). The next day, the Clerk of the Court issued summons for 23 service upon Defendant Galactic Co., LLC, and the Court entered an order setting a mandatory 24 scheduling conference for February 12, 2025. (Docs. 3-4). The Court’s order directed Plaintiff 25 to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” 26 (Doc. 4 at 1). The order further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action 27 “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” Id. 28 1 failure, and no Defendant has appeared in the action. 2 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 3 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 4 sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 5 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 6 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

(9th Cir. 2000). 7 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “If a defendant 8 is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after 9 notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order 10 that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent a showing of good 11 cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant. 12 The Court notes that given this is the second time recently it has been compelled to 13 admonish counsel for Plaintiff to diligently comply with the Court’s orders, local rules and Rule 14 4(m) (see Harris v. Galactic Co., LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01347-CDB, Doc. 5), sanctions appear 15 warranted. 16 Conclusion and Order 17 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 18 this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed – 19 including dismissal of any unserved Defendant or this action in its entirety – for Plaintiff’s 20 failure to prosecute, failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner, and failure 21 to promptly file proof of service. Filing summons returned executed following entry of this 22 order WILL NOT relieve Plaintiff of her obligation to respond to this order in writing. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference previously set for February 24 12, 2025, is CONTINUED to March 31, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on 2 || Defendant within five (5) days of entry of this order and promptly file proof of service thereof. 3 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order to show cause will result in 4 || the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation to dismiss this action. 5 || TT IS SO ORDERED. °|| Dated: _ February 7, 2025 | nnd Rr 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28