Robledo v. CEC Entertainment Incorporated et al
ORDER - 1. Counsel's motion to withdraw (Doc. 26 ) is granted. 2. Plaintiff's motion to vacate (Doc. 24 ) is granted. The settlement conference set in this case for November 21, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge John A. Buttrick is vacated. 3. Pursuant to Rule 41(b), this action is dismissed. 4. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/17/14. (LAD)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
No. CV14-1269 PHX DGC
CEC Entertainment Incorporated, an
Arizona corporation doing business as
Chuck E. Cheese’s, et al.,
Plaintiff’s counsel have moved to withdraw. Doc. 26. They advise the Court that
Plaintiff has stopped communicating with them and her location is now unknown. Id.
Counsel have tried communicating with Plaintiff by email, telephone, mail, through her
mother, and with the aid of a process server, all to no avail. Id. Plaintiff has failed to
cooperate with counsel in preparing for a settlement conference scheduled by the Court
for November 21, 2014. See Doc. 19.
Plaintiff has a general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co.
v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute
or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal
of an action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U .S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the
Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a
case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) appears
to require a motion. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a
complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633.
In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal, the
Court must weigh the following five 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.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th
Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). Here,
the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to communicate
with her counsel and prepare for events scheduled by the Court prevents the case from
proceeding in the foreseeable future.
The fourth factor, as always, weighs against
alternative is available. Without Plaintiff’s current address, however, certain alternatives
are bound to be futile. As in Carey, “[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not
warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour
through the United States mail.” Id. at 1441.
The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic
The Court concludes that dismissal of this case under Rule 41(b) is appropriate.
IT IS ORDERED:
Counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 26) is granted.
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Doc. 24) is granted.
conference set in this case for November 21, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. before
Judge John A. Buttrick is vacated.
Pursuant to Rule 41(b), this action is dismissed.
The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 17th day of November, 2014.
‐ 2 ‐
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?