Atlas Lifting & Rigging, LLC v. Trevor Berner and Synergy Marketing & Sales,...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ATLAS LIFTING & RIGGING, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-0808 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TREVOR BERNER and SYNERGY MARKETING & SALES. INC., Defendants.

18 On September 2, 2025, default judgment was granted as to defendant Synergy Marketing & Sales, Inc. ECF No. 26. This case remains pending against pro se defendant Trevor Berner.

20 On September 10, 2025, plaintiff was ordered to file a status report no later than September 24, 2025, indicating its intentions regarding the prosecution of this case against remaining defendant Travis Berner. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff did not file the required report. On September 30, 2025, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, in writing, within 14 days, why the failure to file a report stating its intentions as to the prosecution of this case against Berner should not result in a recommendation that the case against Berner be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause.

27 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute as to the sole remaining defendant Trevor Berner, the court has considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious || resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the || defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the || availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. | 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot move forward without plaintiffs participation, || the court finds the factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY | RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as to the sole remaining defendant, Trevor || Berner, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

8 | The undersigned further recommends that this case be closed.

9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one (21) || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written || objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s | Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

15 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16 | DATED: October 15, 2025 * 17 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE