UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-08115-MRA (Ex) Date September 8, 2025 Title SDLA Courier Service, Inc. et al v. City Capital NY LLC et al

Present: The Honorable MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Melissa H. Kunig None Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND LACK OF

PROSECUTION

On August 11, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion”) and denied the Motion without prejudice for reasons stated on the record. ECF 59. The Court further ordered that Plaintiffs may renew the Motion, correcting the deficiencies identified by the Court therein, within 14 days of the Court’s Order. Jd. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a renewed Motion. It is within the “inherent power” of the court to swa sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution to “manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962); see also Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 400 (9th Cir. 1998): Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court, on its own motion, therefore ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause in writing no later than September 11, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order and lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). As an alternative to a written response, the Court shall consider the filing of a motion for default judgment on or before the above date as an appropriate response to this Order. Failure to file a timely response shall result in dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b). No oral argument regarding this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk mku