Mauricio Herrera v. Sunrise Ford, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. 2:24-cv-10502-SPG-SK Date January 20, 2026 Mauricio Herrera v. Sunrise Ford, et al.

Title Ss Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Patricia 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 Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution Under the Scheduling Order issued by the Court on February 10, 2025, the parties were required to make certain pretrial filings by January 7, 2026. See (ECF No. 16-1). The parties have not made the required filings. Additionally, the record reflects that no action has been taken in this case since the Scheduling Order was issued nearly a year ago. It therefore appears that Plaintiff is not prosecuting this case.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this Order, Plaintiff shall respond, in writing, explaming why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. This matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiffs response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

00 00 Initials of Preparer pg