Case 5:21-cv-00800-JGB-SP Document 10 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:37

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 21-800 JGB (SPx) Date February 9, 2022 Title Arac Burt v. Cannon Management LLC et al. Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: Order DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Prosecute (IN

CHAMBERS)

On May 5, 20221, Plaintiff Arac Burt filed his Complaint against Defendants “Cannon Management LLC, and Enclave LLC” and Does 1-50. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On January 18, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by February 7, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (“Order,” Dkt. No. 9.) As of February 9, 2022, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute her case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order and failed to prosecute this case with reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 1 of 1 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk NP