UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 21-2102 JGB (SPx) Date November 28, 2023 Title Dada Hospitality, LLC v. County of San Bernardino, 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 December 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants County of San Bernardino, et al. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On August 8, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by August 16, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (“OSC,” Dkt. No. 11.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has neither continued to prosecute this case nor responded to the Court’s OSC. 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. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). Plaintiffs must prosecute their cases with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s OSC, and thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case with reasonable diligence and that dismissal is therefore appropriate. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.