1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN TAYLOR, Case No. 25-cv-08680-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9

10 MR. COOPER, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff John Taylor filed this action on July 9, 2025, in state court. Dkt. No. 1-4. On 14 October 9, 2025, Defendants removed the case to federal court. Dkt. No. 1. On October 15, 2025, 15 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 5. The motion asserts that Defendants were never 16 properly served, and therefore the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Id. 17 at 4. Taylor’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on October 29, 2025, 42 days ago, but 18 Taylor has yet to file an opposition. 19 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), courts may dismiss a case for failure to 20 prosecute if warranted by the Court’s balancing of certain factors, including the Court’s need to 21 manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the parties, and the public interest in expeditious 22 resolution of litigation. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). Further, the 23 Court’s Standing Order states explicitly that “failure of a party to file a memorandum of points 24 and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.” 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Accordingly, Taylor is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why the above-titled 2 action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) and for failure to 3 oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Taylor’s response shall not exceed five pages and shall be 4 || filed no later than December 19, 2025. Failure to timely respond may result in dismissal of this 5 case. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: December 10, 2025 : ob Mele 10 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 12

15 16

= 17

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