UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 24-0354 JGB (SHKx) Date January 31, 2025 Title Valor Systems, Inc. et al v. TransX Systems, Inc. et al.

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order (1) Dismissing Action for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Follow the Court’s Orders and (2) DIRECTING the Clerk to Close the Case (IN CHAMBERS)

On February 13, 2024, plaintiffs Valor Systems, Inc. (“Valor”) and Michael Mai (“Mai”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against defendants TransX Systems, Inc. (“TransX”), Hung Tran (“Tran”), and James C. Kallimani (“Kallimani”). (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On June 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. (“FAC,” Dkt. No. 19.) On November 13, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 40.) On November 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. (“SAC,” Dkt. No. 41.) On December 18, 2024, Defendants answered the SAC. (“Answer,” Dkt. No. 42.)

On October 3, 2024, the Court issued an order setting a scheduling conference for January 6, 2025. (“Order Setting Scheduling Conference,” Dkt. No. 35.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Local Rule 26, and this Court’s Order Setting Scheduling Conference, the parties were required to file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report “not later than 14 days before [the date of] the [scheduling] conference.” (Order Setting Scheduling Conference at 2.); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); L.R. 26. Accordingly, the parties’ Joint Rule 26(f) Report was due December 23, 2024.

The parties failed to file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report by the deadline. On January 6, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling notice and order (1) continuing the scheduling conference to February 3, 2025 and (2) requiring the parties to review and comply with the Order Setting Scheduling Conference. (“January 6, 2025 Order,” Dkt. No. 43.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Local Rule 26, and this Court’s Order Setting Scheduling Conference, the parties’ Joint Rule 26(f) Report was due January 20, 2025. To date, the parties have failed to file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report, request more time, or explain why they have failed to comply with this Court’s orders.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute her case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, it appears that Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute the case with reasonable diligence by failing to meet and confer with Defendants and timely file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report. Both parties have twice failed to comply with this Court’s orders: the Order Setting Scheduling Conference and the January 6, 2025 Order. No explanation has been given for these failures to follow the Court’s Orders.

Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, DISMISSES the action for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the Court’s orders and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.