William Redick v. On Time Capital LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM REDICK, individually and on Case No. 1:25-cv-00928-JLT-CDB behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY Plaintiff, SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO v. PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS ON TIME CAPITAL LLC, ORDER CONTINUING THE OCTOBER 27, Defendant.

2025, MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE OF THIS ORDER AND TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE FIVE (5)-DAY DEADLINE 21 Plaintiff William Redick (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on July 29, 2025. (Doc. 1). That same day, the Clerk of the Court issued summons for service upon Defendant On Time Capital LLC (“Defendant”), and the Court entered an order setting a mandatory scheduling conference for October 27, 2025. (Docs. 2, 3). The Court’s order directed Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” (Doc. 3 at 1). Regarding scheduling of the case, the Court’s order also directed the parties to file a scheduling report at least one week in advance of the scheduling conference (e.g., no later than October 20, 2025). Id. at 2. The order further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” Id. 3 Notwithstanding the Court’s order, to date, Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service nor any report setting forth an explanation for the failure, and no Defendant has appeared in the action.

5 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order to timely file a scheduling report in advance of the scheduling conference. The Court notes that Plaintiff and his counsel were admonished of these same concerns in an order to show cause entered in an unrelated action before the undersigned, William Redick v. FAVO Capital Inc., 1:25-cv-00880-JLT-CDB (Doc. 4).1 9 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

14 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent a showing of good cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant.

19 Conclusion and Order 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed— including dismissal of any unserved Defendant or this action in its entirety—for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner, failure to promptly file proof of service, and failure to timely file a scheduling report. Filing summons returned executed following entry of this order WILL NOT relieve Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to this order in writing.

1 The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 28 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference previously set for October 27, || 2025, is CONTINUED to December 11, 2025, at 9:00 AM. 3 And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on || Defendant within five (5) days of entry of this order and promptly file proof of service thereof.

5 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order will result in the imposition of || sanctions, including a recommendation to dismiss this action.

7 || IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ October 22, 2025 | hwrnrD RX 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE