Lasco
Lasco v. Carson Corporate Fitness, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BERNARDUZ LASCO, Case No. 25-cv-0228-BAS-KSC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
CARSON CORPORATE FITNESS,
INC.,
15 Defendant.
17 Plaintiff commenced this action against Carson Corporate Fitness, Inc. (“Defendant”) on January 31, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if the defendant is not served within ninety days after the complaint is filed, the court must dismiss the action against the defendant or order that service be made within a specific time. In addition, a district court has inherent power to dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the case. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630– 31 (1962). Plaintiff’s deadline to complete service under Rule 4(m) lapsed on May 1, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On May 21, 2025, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for a failure…