1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OPTRASCAN, INC., Case No. 24-cv-07979-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9

10 DANIEL WIESE, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On March 3, 2025 Plaintiff Optrascan, Inc. filed three notices with the Court related to the 14 issuance of letters rogatory to the appropriate judicial authority of South Africa. Shortly thereafter, 15 the Court advised Optrascan that it should re-file these notices as a motion stating the specific 16 relief it seeks. Dkt. No. 16. Optrascan never filed said motion. Then, on May 1, 2025, the Court 17 held a joint case management conference in this case. This hearing had initially been scheduled for 18 February 18, 2025, but the Court re-scheduled the hearing to May 1, 2025 at Optrascan’s request. 19 Neither party appeared at the case management conference, nor did any party file a case 20 management statement. 21 Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to 22 prosecute or comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962); 23 McKeever v. Block,

(9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal should only be 24 ordered when the failure to comply is unreasonable. See

A district court should afford the 25 litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv.,

128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). 27 Plaintiff Optrascan, Inc. is ordered show cause by May 15, 2025 why this action should not 1 dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: May 1, 2025 5 4 ; Ze 6 P. Casey Pitts 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

2B

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28