Deborah Van Horn v. Omnicom Group Health and Welfare Benefit Plan
Filing
26
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson. For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-7876 PA (GJSx)
Title
Deborah Van Horn v. Omnicom Group Health and Welfare Benefit Plan
Present: The Honorable
Date
July 26, 2017
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Kamilla Sali-Suleyman
N/A
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS—ORDER
This is an ERISA action involving a disputed claim for medical benefits brought by plaintiff
Deborah Van Horn (“Plaintiff”) against defendant Omnicom Group Health and Welfare Plan
(“Defendant”). On February 24, 2017, the Court issued an Order requiring the parties to file the
administrative record by March 27, 2017, to file opening trial briefs by June 19, 2017, and to file
underlined findings of fact and conclusions of law by July 24, 2017. (Docket No. 22.) To date, despite
the passage of these deadlines, the parties have failed to file any of the required documents.
The Court may dismiss with prejudice an action or claim sua sponte if “the plaintiff fails to
prosecute or to comply with the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order.” See Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1388, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734
(1962) (dismissal for failure to prosecute); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 987–88 (9th Cir.
1999) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). This inherent power supports the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases. See Link, 370 U.S. at 629–30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1388–89, 8 L. Ed. 2d
734; Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,
987–88 (9th Cir. 1999).
In Henderson v. Duncan, the Ninth Circuit set forth five factors for a district court to consider
before resorting to the penalty of dismissal: “(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.” 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) (internal citations omitted) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263).
Cases involving sua sponte dismissal merit special focus on the fifth Henderson factor. Id.
Here, in assessing the first Henderson factor, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation will be satisfied by a dismissal. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)
(citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-7876 PA (GJSx)
Date
July 26, 2017
Title
Deborah Van Horn v. Omnicom Group Health and Welfare Benefit Plan
dismissal)). Relatedly, with respect to the second factor, the Court’s need to manage its docket will be
served by dismissal. See id.
The third Henderson factor at least marginally favors dismissal. Defendant may be further
prejudiced unless the complaint is dismissed. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642
(holding that failure to timely amend risks prejudice and can justify dismissal).
In considering the fourth and fifth Henderson factors, the Court notes that Plaintiff has taken no
action whatsoever since filing a Notice of Selection of Mediator on March 10, 2017. (Docket No. 24.)
It therefore appears that Plaintiff has abandoned her efforts to obtain a judgment on the merits.
Additionally, the Court intends to dismiss this action without prejudice. Accordingly, the fifth
Henderson factor favors dismissal because the Court has adopted the “less-drastic” sanction of dismissal
without prejudice. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (district court should
first consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal with prejudice).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to comply
with a Court order and for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Yourish, 191 F.3d at
986–88; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 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?