J.S. v. Los Angeles Unified School District et al
J.S. v. Los Angeles Unified School District et al
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-08291-SPG-AGR Date December 18, 2025 Title J.S. v. Los Angeles Unified School District et al
ee Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE P. Gomez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present
Proceeding: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION On January 23, 2025, the Court entered a Civil Pretrial Schedule and Trial Order, (ECF No. 23-1 (“Scheduling Order”), setting forth the deadlines in the case. As relevant here, the Scheduling Order sets December 10, 2025, as the deadline to file first round trial filings, which include motions in limine, memoranda of contentions of law and fact, witness lists, a joint exhibit list, a joint status report regarding settlement, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Scheduling Order). Based on the Court’s review of the docket, it appears that the parties have not filed their first round trial filings. To date, the docket reflects that Plaintiff J.S., by and through his guardian ad litem Jasmine Spain (“Plaintiff’), has failed to otherwise prosecute the action. Under the circumstances, the Court has the inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 629(1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”). Consistent with that authority, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before December 31, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff should also set forth in Plaintiff's response the current status of the litigation. This matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiffs response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Failure of Plaintiff to respond will be deemed as consent to the dismissal of the action. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer pg
Reference
- Status
- Unknown