ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL and VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, Senior District Judge.

On July 23, 2018, Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed the instant action for disability discrimination under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") against Defendant HDLM Associates, Inc. On July 26, 2018, the Court set this matter for an initial Case Management Conference ("CMC") on January 24, 2019, and ordered the parties to file their joint CMC statement by January 17, 2019. Dkt. 11.

Pursuant to General Order 56, the parties are required to have completed a joint inspection of the subject property by November 5, 2018. Dkt. 5. By December 3, 2018, the parties were to have met and conferred regarding settlement. Id. Absent a settlement, Plaintiff had until December 17, 2018, to file a Notice for Need of Mediation.

In violation of the Court's scheduling order, the parties have failed to file a joint CMC statement in anticipation of the CMC scheduled for January 24, 2019. In addition, there is no indication in the record that the parties have complied with the aforementioned General Order 56 deadlines, nor has Plaintiff filed a Notice for Need for Mediation, as required.

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court." Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In considering whether to dismiss a case under Rule 41(b), "the district court must weigh the following factors . . .: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). Dismissal is appropriate "where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors `strongly' support dismissal." Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show cause why the instant action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. Within seven (7) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a written memorandum, supported with a declaration if appropriate, to explain why the case should or should not be dismissed, taking into account the five factors set forth above relevant to Rule 41(b). In addition, the memorandum shall set forth the nature of the cause, its present status, the reason it has not been brought to trial or otherwise terminated, any basis for opposing dismissal and its expected course if not dismissed. FAILURE TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO DISMISS THE ACTION, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the CMC scheduled for January 24, 2019 is VACATED until further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.