Tito Vasquez v. Baskin Robbins Ice Cream No 116
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:20-cv-00363-JLS-KES Date: March 09, 2020 Title: Tito Vasquez v. Baskin Robbins Ice Cream No 116 et al.
Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION
On February 25, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims. (Doc. 6.) In that Order, the Court explicitly stated that “[f]ailure to respond may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed a response. As noted in the Court’s prior Order, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) the Court has the inherent power to dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962); Hells…