1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10, LATANYA WILLIAMS, ) Case No. CV 25-1213-FMO (BFMx) 11 Plaintiff, 12 V. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 13], J LORRAINE LLC, et al., ) 14 Defendants.

V0 )

16 On February 24, 2025, the court issued a Standing Order Re: Disability Cases (see Dkt. 10, Court’s Order of February 24, 2025), which ordered plaintiff to file a request for entry of default no later than seven days after the time the response to the complaint would have been due by the 19] defendant. (Id. at 2). The court admonished plaintiff that “failure to seek entry of default within 20 seven [] days after the deadline to file a response to the complaint shall result in the dismissal of 21] the action and/or the defendant against whom entry of default should have been sought.” (Id. at 2-3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962)). 24 Here, defendant Ennio Capra, As Trustee of the Ennio Capra Trust (“defendant”) was 25 || served with the summons and complaint on April 8, 2025, by substituted service pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(b). (See Dkt. 12, Proof of Service). Accordingly, defendant’s responsive pleading to the Complaint was due no later than May 9, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28|| 12(a); Cal. Civ. Proc Code § 415.20(b) (“Service of a summons in this manner is deemed

1 complete on the 10th day after the mailing.”). As of the date of this Order, defendant has not 2|| answered the complaint, nor has plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. (See, generally, Dkt.). 3 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. 4] Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30, 82 S.Ct. at 1388 (authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss 7| action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and 8|| should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this 9] extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986). These factors include: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” 13 | Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); see 14 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (“By its plain text, a Rule 41(b) dismissal . . . requires ‘a court order’ with which an offending plaintiff failed to 16 | comply.”). “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings 17 | in order to show that it has considered these factors and [the Ninth Circuit] may review the record independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 19] 1261. 20 Having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that this action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's failure to file a request for entry of default hinders the court’s ability to move this case toward disposition and 23] indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action. In other words, plaintiff's “noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing [her] to 25 | control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 26 | (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, plaintiff was warned that failure to file request for entry of default would result in a dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and 28 | failure to comply with a court order. (See Dkt. 10, Court’s Order of February 24, 2025 at 2-3); see

1 also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the 2 court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration of alternatives requirement.”) 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is 4 persuaded that the instant action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and 5 failure to prosecute. 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, 7 without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court. 8 Dated this 20th day of May, 2025. 9 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28