1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 BASF CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00614-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

13 v.

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO

14 COLOR COAT RESTORATION, INC., et al.,

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

15 Defendants.

ORDER CONTINUING THE

MANDATORY SCHEDULING

16

CONFERENCE

17

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

EFFECT SERVICE OF THIS ORDER AND

18

TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

19

FIVE-DAY DEADLINE

20 21 22 Plaintiff BASF Corporation (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a 23 complaint on May 22, 2024. (Doc. 1). That same day, the Clerk of the Court issued summonses 24 and the Court entered an order setting a mandatory scheduling conference on August 20, 2024. 25 (Docs. 4-5). The Court’s order directed Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and 26 complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” (Doc. 5 at 1). The order further advised 27 Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in the imposition of sanctions, 28 including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed proofs of 1 service, and no Defendant has appeared in the action. 2 The Court’s order setting mandatory scheduling conference separately required the 3 parties to file a joint scheduling report one week prior to the scheduling conference (e.g., no later 4 than August 13, 2024). (Doc. 5 at 2). Plaintiff has failed to timely file a joint scheduling report. 5 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 6 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 7 sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 8 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 9 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 10 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “If a defendant 11 is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after 12 notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order 13 that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent a showing of good 14 cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant. 15 Conclusion and Order 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 17 this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed – 18 including dismissal of unserved Defendants or this action in its entirety – for Plaintiff’s failure to 19 prosecute, to serve the summonses and complaint in a timely manner, and to timely file a joint 20 scheduling report. Filing summonses returned executed following entry of this order WILL 21 NOT relieve Plaintiff of its obligation to respond to this order in writing. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference previously set for August 23 20, 2024, is CONTINUED to October 2, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on 2 || Defendants within five (5) days of entry of this order and promptly file proof of service thereof. 3 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order to show cause will result in the 4 || imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation to dismiss this action. 5 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ August 14, 2024 | Ww v KD i 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28