Alejandra Cardona Sandoval v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation et al

Filing 17

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/8/2024. (twdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 24-1461 JGB (SHKx)

Date October 25, 2024

Title Alejandra Cardona Sandoval v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, et al.

Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute
(IN CHAMBERS)

On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff Alejandra Cardona Sandoval (“Plaintiff” or “Sandoval”) filed
a complaint against Defendants Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (“Toyota”) and Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (“Complaint,” Dkt.
No. 1.) The Complaint alleges two causes of action against Defendants: (1) violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. and (2) violation of California’s Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.1, et seq. (See id.)
On September 16, 2024, Sandoval filed a notice of settlement between Plaintiff and
Defendant Toyota. (Dkt. No. 14.) On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal with
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) as to Defendant Toyota. (Dkt.
No. 16.) Accordingly, Defendant Experian is the only remaining defendant.
On July 26, 2024, Defendant Experian was served with the summons and Complaint.
(“Experian Proof of Service,” Dkt. No. 15.) As such, Defendant Experian’s responsive pleading
was due on August 16, 2024. (See id.); Fed R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). To date, Defendant Experian has
not filed a responsive pleading to the Complaint. Sandoval has also not filed a request for entry
of default as to Defendant Experian.

Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Absent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the
summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Generally, defendants must answer the complaint within 21 days after
service (60 days if the defendant is the United States). Fed R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss
actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute her case
with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,
542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case
with reasonable diligence because she has failed to request an entry of default as to Defendant
Experian for over two months.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, on or before November 8, 2024, to request
an entry of default as to Defendant Experian or to show cause in writing as to why she has not
requested an entry of default. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the
action. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this
matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG