Mick v. Seaspan Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 PATRICK MICK, CASE NO. C20-1201JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. SEASPAN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

15 On August 7, 2020, Plaintiff Patrick Mick filed this action for personal injuries he suffered while working as a longshoreman on a vessel he alleges was managed and operated by Defendants Seaspan Corporation and Seaspan Ship Management Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”). (Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) He amended his complaint on January 1, 2021. (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 12).) On July 28, 2021, after following Hague Convention procedures to serve Defendants in Hong Kong, Mr. Mick filed an affidavit of service.

21 (See OSC Resp. (Dkt. # 17); Aff. (Dkt. # 18) (noting that Mr. Mick had served Defendants on June 1, 2021).) Counsel for Defendants appeared in this matter on August 12, 2021. (8/12/21 Not. (Dkt. # 19).)

3 Nearly seventeen months have now passed since counsel for Defendants appeared in this action. Nevertheless, Defendants have not answered the amended complaint, and Mr. Mick has not moved for default. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, the court ORDERS Mr. Mick to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that a district court has “inherent power sua sponte to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution”).

10 Mr. Mick must respond to this show cause order by January 20, 2023. Failure to timely respond to this order to show cause may result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423 (discussing factors that the court considers in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).

14 Dated this 10th day of January, 2023.

A 17 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge