Opinion
Civil Action 23-990 (TJK)
09-26-2024
DAVIDA LIMES et al., Plaintiffs, v. PCHANGE, LLC et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
TIMOTHY J. KELLY, United States District Judge.
On May 31, 2024, Plaintiffs' Counsel-Attorneys Darrell Chambers and Douglas Rosenbloom-filed a motion to withdraw as counsel due to a “non-dischargeable conflict.” ECF No. 48 at 3. Based on the Plaintiffs' failure to object, the Court granted that motion. Minute Order of June 17, 2024. The Court then ordered Plaintiffs to, by July 3, 2024, “either (1) retain new counsel who shall enter his or her appearance or (2) file a status report updating the Court on her efforts to obtain new counsel.” Id. Plaintiffs took neither action, so, on July 23, 2024, the Court ordered them to “show cause why this case should not be dismissed . . . for failure to prosecute” by August 20, 2024. Minute Order of June 23, 2024. It has now been over a month since the deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to that show cause order and they have failed to do so. Thus, pursuant to Local Rule 83.23 and the Court's “inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or otherwise comply with a court order,” Peterson v. Archstone Communities LLC, 637 F.3d 416, 418 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the Court will dismiss the case. A separate order will issue.