Hopson v. Emerald Business Group Incorporated

Full title: CYNTHIA HOPSON, Plaintiff, v. EMERALD BUSINESS GROUP INCORPORATED, doing…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 23, 2015

2:14-cv-2275-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2015)

Opinion

CYNTHIA HOPSON, Plaintiff, v. EMERALD BUSINESS GROUP INCORPORATED, doing business as FLAG CITY CHEVRON, et al., Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-2275-KJM-EFB United States District Court, E.D. California. September 23, 2015

          ORDER

          KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

         Plaintiff Cynthia Hopson filed a complaint in this action on September 30, 2014. ECF No. 1. On April 29, 2015, no defendant had yet appeared, and the court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 9. The order was later discharged. ECF No. 14. On June 16, 2015, an amended complaint was filed. ECF No. 16. Summonses issued, but none has been returned as executed, despite the court's order of September 30, 2014, requiring service in 90 days. See ECF No. 3 at 1. No defendant has yet appeared. A pretrial scheduling conference is set for October 1, 2015, with a joint status report due no later than September 24, 2015.

         Given the history of this case, if proof of service of the amended complaint is not filed within seven days, with a request for extension of the initial scheduling conference supported by good cause, the court intends to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (a district court may dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.