Lerner & Rowe Injury Attorneys v. Torres

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA kk

LERNER & ROWE INJURY ATTORNEYS, Case No. 2:19-CV-1837 JCM (EJY) Plaintiff(s), ORDER V.

JOSE NICASIO TORRES, et al.,

Defendant(s).

Presently before the court is the matter of Lerner & Rowe Injury Attorneys v. Torres et al. case number 2:19-cv-01837-JCM-EJY.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute 16) orto comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This court also has the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss a case for want of prosecution or compliance with court orders. Link v. Wabash R Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).

This inherent power is codified in the district’s local rules. Local Rule 41-1 provides that “(alll civil actions that have been pending in this court for more than 270 days without any proceeding of record having been taken may, after notice, be dismissed for want of prosecution by the court sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or pro se party.” LR 41-1.

On March 3, 2021, the court notified the parties that “[i]f no action is taken in this case within 30 days, the Court will enter an order of dismissal for want of prosecution.” (ECF No. 27\ 55). The parties have not taken any action since.

C. Mahan

Judge

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this matter be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

The clerk shall close the case.

DATED April 7, 2021. tias ©. Malan

UNITED)STATES DISTRICT JUDGES es C. Mahan

District Judge _2-