Lynch v. Van Lines Relocation Services Incorporated et al

Filing 21

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that the Court dismiss 1 Complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4 (a) (1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 3/1/18. (EJA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Blake Lynch,

No. CV-17-02285-PHX-ESW
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Van
Lines
Relocation
Incorporated, et al.,

REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

13

Services

Defendants.

14
15
16

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

17

JUDGE:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants unlawfully
failed to pay overtime wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and
A.R.S.§ § 23-351, 353, and 355. (Doc. 1). Defendants were served and failed to answer
or timely respond. (Docs. 7-12). In response to the Court’s Order for Plaintiff to show
cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, an Application
for Entry of Default was filed on October 9, 2017, and the Clerk of Court’s Entry of
Default was filed on October 10, 2017. (Docs. 13-15). The Court set a Default Damages
Hearing (Doc. 16), which Plaintiff moved to vacate (Doc. 17). The Court vacated the
Default Damages Hearing and ordered Plaintiff to file his proposed Motion for Entering a
Default Judgment with supporting affidavits no later than December 27, 2017. (Doc. 18).

1
2

On January 16, 2018, the Court issued an Order allowing Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw

3

and granting Plaintiff additional time up to February 21, 2018 within which to file a

4

Motion for Entering Default Judgment with supporting affidavits. (Doc. 20 at 2). The

5

Court further advised Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to timely file the Motion for Entering

6

Default Judgment shall result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.” (Id.). The

7

Court presumes that Plaintiff received the Order as it was mailed to his address of record

8

as provided by his counsel and was not returned to the Court. As of the date of this

9

Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has not filed the Motion for Entering Default

10

Judgment with supporting affidavits as ordered.

11

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. See Fidelity Phila. Trust Co.

12

v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is a well established

13

rule that the duty to move a case is on the plaintiff and not on the defendant or the

14

court.”).

15

supporting affidavits as ordered by the Court constitutes failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff’s failure to file a Motion for Entering Default Judgment with

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “if the plaintiff fails to

17

prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to

18

dismiss the action or any claim against it.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S.

19

626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the

20

inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the

21

language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) appears to require a motion from a

22

party. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a pleading for

23

failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Link, 370 U.S. at 633.

24

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the

25

case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in

26

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk

27

of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

28

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440

-2-

1

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of

2

these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts

3

against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability

4

of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

5

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s

6

failure to abide by the Court’s Order (Doc. 20) prevents the case from proceeding in the

7

foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth

8

factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The

9

undersigned finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 41(b)

10

provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the

11

merits “[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise.” In this case, the undersigned finds

12

that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The undersigned therefore

13

recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of

14

Civil Procedure 41(b).

15

For the above reasons,

16

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 1) without

17

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

18

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

19

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)

20

should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have

21

fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation

22

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a

24

response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Report and

25

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

26

District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual

27

determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

28

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

-3-

1

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

2

1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

3

Dated this 1st day of March, 2018.

4
5
6

Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-