CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 25-08544-AS Date December 22, 2025 Title Mister Bailey v. Silvia Hernandez, et al.

Present: The Honorable Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge Alma Felix N/A Deputy Clerk Court Smart / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: N/A N/A

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE LACK OF PROSECUTION

On September 9, 2025, Plaintiff Mister Bailey (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Silvia Hernandez and Does 1–10. (Dkt. No. 1). On September 17, 2025, the Clerk issued a summons as to Defendant Hernandez (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 6). Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting that Plaintiff served Defendant on October 20, 2025. (Dkt. No. 8). Defendant’s answer was therefore due on November 10, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). To date, Defendant has not answered the complaint. Plaintiff has declined to further prosecute his action, however, including by filing a request for entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) or a notice of voluntary dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this action diligently by filing stipulations extending time to respond and seeking Rule 55 remedies promptly upon default of any defendant.

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within 14 days of the date of this Order, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding district courts have “inherent power sua sponte to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution”) (citations omitted). Plaintiff may discharge this Order by seeking entry of default or filing a notice of voluntary dismissal. Failure to timely respond to this Order may result in involuntary dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and/or for failure to obey a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.