UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-08703-SPG(PVCx) Date January 8, 2026 Ti Randall Nickerson et al v. Netflix, Inc. et al itle

a Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Patricia Gomez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceeding: [In Chambers] Order To Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution Plaintiff(s) are ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion). The below time period(s) has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiffs to show cause, in writing, on or before January 22, 2026, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. This matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiffs response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. Absent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the summons and complaint are not served on a Defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Plaintiffs have failed to file a proof of service on First Amended Complaint within 90 days of the filing of the Complaint on the following Defendant(s): « Angus Wall Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC e Netflix Inc. ¢ Boardwalk Pictures Inc. e« Amblin Entertainment Inc. e MakeMake, LLC e AS2,LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-08703-SPG(PVCx) Date January 8, 2026 Title Randall Nickerson et al v. Netflix, Inc. et al

Plaintiffs can satisfy this order by showing that service was effectuated within the 90 day deadline or by showing good cause for the failure to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

00 00

Initials of Preparer pg