Case 5:20-cv-02590-JGB-SP Document 16 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:112

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 20-2590 JGB (SPx) Date February 9, 2022 Title Ada Maria Benson v. Novitas Solution, Inc. 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 December 15, 2020, Plaintiff Ada Maria Benson filed her Complaint against Defendant Novitas Solution Inc. (“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. 15.) 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 Court also DENIES the motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as MOOT. (See Dkt. No. 10.) 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