(PS) Ortiz v. Client Services, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANDREW R. ORTIZ and RENE ORTIZ, No. 2:18-cv-02396-KJM-AC 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 CLIENT SERVICES, INC., 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was accordingly referred to the 17 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On April 23, 2019, 18 the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended 19 complaint. ECF No. 22. Since that date, the undersigned has issued two orders to show cause 20 why plaintiffs’ failure to file an amended complaint should not result in a recommendation of 21 dismissal for failure to prosecute. ECF Nos. 24, 27. Plaintiffs responded to the first show-cause 22 order, requesting a continuance so that they could attempt to resolve the matter out of court. ECF 23 No. 25. The court granted them an additional 30 days to file an amended complaint, warning that 24 a failure to amend may result in a dismissal recommendation. ECF No. 26 at 2. 25 Having received no amended complaint, on July 15, 2019, the court issued its second 26 show-cause order, cautioning plaintiffs that failure to respond in writing within 14 days would 27 result in a dismissal recommendation and that absent an exceedingly strong showing of good 28 cause, no further extensions would be granted. ECF No. 27. 1 Despite their extended opportunity to file their amended complaint, plaintiffs have not 2 || responded to the court’s recent orders or taken the necessary action to continue prosecuting this 3 | case. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 4 || prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s orders. See Fed. R. 5 || Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) 8 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiffs may file written 9 | objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate □□□□□□ □ 10 || Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file 11 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 12 || Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 | DATED: August 1, 2019 ~ 14 Ctlhter— Lane 15 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28