1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEBORAH VANCE, et al., ) No. ED CV 25-0564 FMO (ADSx) ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 14 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 21, 2017 (Dkt. 1). By order dated June 6, 2025, 18 plaintiffs were ordered to show cause, on or before June 13, 2025, why this action should not be 19 dismissed for plaintiffs’ failure to complete service of the summons and complaint as required by 20 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Dkt. 9, Court’s Order of June 6, 2025). 21 Plaintiffs were admonished that “[f]ailure to file a timely response to th[e] Order to Show Cause 22 may result in the action being dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the 23 orders of the court, pursuant to Local Rule 41.” (Id.). As of the date of this Order, plaintiffs have 24 not responded to the Order to Show Cause nor filed proofs of service of the summons and 25 complaint on any defendant. (See, generally, Dkt.). 26 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court, on its own initiative, 27 “must dismiss the action without prejudice” if service is not effected “within 90 days after the 28 1 to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629- 2 30,

(1962) (authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute necessary to avoid undue 3 delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 4 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

,

(1992) (district court may dismiss action 5 for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and should be 6 imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this extreme 7 remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 8

,

(1986). These factors include: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 9 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 10 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 11 availability of less drastic sanctions. Id.; Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th Cir. 12 1986). 13 Pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) and the Court’s inherent power to achieve the orderly and 14 expeditious disposition of cases, Link,

,

, and in light of the 15 factors outlined in Henderson, supra, dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to effect 16 service within the specified time and comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on June 17 6, 2025 (Dkt. 9), is appropriate. 18 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, 19 without prejudice, for failure to effect service and comply with the orders of this Court. 20 Dated this 20th day of June, 2025. 21 /s/ 22 Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28