CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-4078-MWF(SKx) Date: September 13, 2023 Title: Fabric Selection, Inc. v. Be Modest Boutique, et al. Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge

Deputy Clerk: Court Reporter: Rita Sanchez Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: None Present None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff Fabric Selection, Inc. commenced this action against Defendant Be Modest Boutique. (Complaint (Docket No. 1)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiff must have served the Complaint by August 23, 2023. On June 27, 2023, Rebecca Hickey on behalf of Defendant Be Modest Boutique filed an unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. (Docket No. 11). The Court granted the Defendant’s Motion and ordered that “Counsel is ordered to respond to the Complaint by August 3, 2023.” (See Order, Docket No. 12). On August 22, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”), by no later than September 1, 2023, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Docket No. 13). As of September 12, 2023, Plaintiff has not filed a response or any documents responsive to the OSC. It is well-established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action due to her failure to prosecute and/or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (noting that district court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in district court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the court). ______________________________________________________________________________

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-4078-MWF(SKx) Date: September 13, 2023 Title: Fabric Selection, Inc. v. Be Modest Boutique, et al. Before ordering dismissal, the Court must consider five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to Defendant; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61 (failure to comply with court orders). Taking all of these factors into account, dismissal for lack of prosecution is warranted. Plaintiff was specifically warned that failure to respond to the OSC would result in dismissal of this action. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________________________________________________