Masonry Security Plan of Washington v. Hallin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE MASONRY SECURITY PLAN OF CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00218-LK 11 WASHINGTON et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Plaintiffs, v. BRIAN SCOTT HALLIN and SARAH 14 LEA HALLIN, 15 Defendants.

17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. There has been no activity of record in this case since the Clerk’s entry of default as to Defendants Brian Scott Hallin and Sara Lea Hallin on June 13, 2022. Dkt. No. 10.

20 Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their claims, see Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978), and they fail to fulfill this duty when they do not litigate their case, see, e.g., Spesock v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. C18-0092-JLR, 2018 WL 5825439, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018). “[T]o prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts may exercise their inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 2 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962).

3 The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within 21 days of this Order. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.

6 Dated this 12th day of January, 2023.

7 A 8 Lauren King United States District Judge