1

2

3

4

5

6

7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM

8 JOSEPH A. STANFORD and SOFTWHO, CIVIL CASE NO. 22-00015 9 Plaintiffs, 10 vs. ORDER 11 MICROSOFT INC., CISCO SYSTEMS INC., 12 SOFTWARE (OEM FIRMS), FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, BANDWIDTH FIRMS, (AT 13 LARGE) FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, (AT LARGE) BANDWIDTH FIRMS, 14 Defendants. 15

16 On January 4, 2023, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint, with leave to amend. 17 Plaintiffs were then put on notice that “[i]f Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint in 18 compliance with [the court] order, [the] action will be dismissed, with prejudice[.]” Plaintiffs 19 were served on January 4, 2023 via first class mail. No amended complaint was timely filed. 20 The court has the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution. Ash 21 v. Cvetkov,

(9th Cir. 1984). “[T]he district court must weigh the court’s need 22 to manage its docket, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and the risk of 23 prejudice to the defendants against the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and 24 Page 2 of 2 1 || the availability of less drastic sanctions.” /d. (citations omitted). Here, the court gave notice to 2 || Plaintiffs that they must file their amended complaint within 30 days of service or the case will 3 || be dismissed. None was filed. Accordingly, the above-captioned matter is hereby DISMISSED 4 || with prejudice. 5 SO ORDERED. 6 /s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood | y ae a Chief Judge 7 aK. UN Dated: Feb 07, 2023

9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24