Case 5:21-cv-00769-JGB-SP Document 31 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:151

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 21-769 JGB (SPx) Date October 11, 2022 Title Jane Doe v. Molly Hill 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 Case (IN CHAMBERS) On July 6, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (“Order,” Dkt. No. 27). The Court ordered Plaintiff to retain new counsel and to have that counsel enter an appearance—or, alternatively, to file a notice that she will proceed pro se—no later than August 5, 2022. (Id.) However, to date, Plaintiff has done neither in violation of the Court’s Order. Further, the parties had agreed to extend time for Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint by June 27, 2022. (See “Non-Opposition to Motion to Withdraw,” Dkt. No. 25, at 2.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint and Defendants have not answered Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which was filed on February 23, 2022. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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. 41(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 prosecute her case with reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action for failure to prosecute. The clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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