Opinion
CV 19-10803-MWF (GJSx)
06-24-2024
A.C.T. 898 Products, Inc. v. Headquarters Beauty Supplies, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On March 20, 2024, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to continue the Final Pretrial Conference (“FPTC”) to June 24, 2024, and trial to July 16, 2024. (Docket No. 95). On June 18, 2024, the Court emailed counsel inquiring whether the parties intended to go forward with the FPTC and trial as scheduled. Defendants' counsel responded that it was his understanding that the parties would proceed with both. Plaintiff's counsel never responded to the Court's email.
Assuming the FPTC would go forward based on Defendants' counsel's response, the Court attempted to hold the FPTC on June 24, 2024. Although Defendants' counsel was present, Plaintiff's counsel failed to appear before the Court, and the Court had not received an email or voicemail from Plaintiff's counsel. Accordingly, the FPTC and trial date were VACATED.
Plaintiff is now ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE (“OSC”), in writing, by no later than June 28, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and/or failure to prosecute under Federal Rule 41(b). See Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6)[.]” (citations omitted)); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962) (“[A] District Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute[.]”).
Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to the OSC by June 28, 2024, will result in dismissal of this action. No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.
If Plaintiff successfully discharges the OSC, the Court will order the parties to mediation before proceeding to trial. While the parties participated in a mediation on March 2, 2021, the Court believes that it is appropriate for the parties to again engage in mediation in light of Defendants' representation that Plaintiff failed to respond to their settlement proposal. (See Docket Nos. 28, 88).
IT IS SO ORDERED.