CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 24-01736-MWF (MAAx) Date: April 9, 2025 Title: Mekka Edwards et al v. The County of Los Angeles et al

Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge

Deputy Clerk: Court Reporter: Rita Sanchez Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE The purpose of this Order to Show Cause is to determine whether Defendants County of Los Angeles, Hilda L. Solis, Janice Hanh, Kathryn Barger, Sheila Kuehl, and Mark Ridley-Thomas have abandoned their defense of this action. On January 27, 2025, the Court issued an Order denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Docket No. 51 (“Prior Order”)). The Prior Order further directed Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) by February 28, 2025, and Defendants to file an Answer or respond to the SAC, if filed, on or before March 28, 2025. (Id. at 14). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have not filed an SAC, and Defendants have not filed an Answer to the FAC. Defendants are ORDERED to file an Answer with the Court on or before April 25, 2025. If Defendants choose not to file an Answer on or before April 25, 2025, the Court will treat Defendants’ failure to file an Answer as an abandonment of their case; Plaintiffs will be invited to file a request for default with the Clerk, followed by a motion for default judgment with this Court. Cf. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the court). ______________________________________________________________________________

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 24-01736-MWF (MAAx) Date: April 9, 2025 Title: Mekka Edwards et al v. The County of Los Angeles et al

Lastly, in the Prior Order, the Court dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiffs’ Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Claims. The Prior Order explained that a failure to file an SAC would be deemed a decision by Plaintiffs to stand upon the existing allegations. (Prior Order at 14). Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants as to these Claims at the conclusion of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________________________________________________