City Prints LLC v. International Fashion Trends et al

Filing 11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that judgment be entered dismissing this action, without prejudice, for failure to effect service and comply with the orders of this Court. (jp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

CITY PRINTS LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
INTERNATIONAL FASHION TRENDS,

15
16

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 17-2785 FMO (JEMx)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

17

Plaintiff filed its complaint April 12, 2017. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint). By order dated June

18

30, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, on or before July 7, 2017, why this action should

19

not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to complete service of the summons and complaint as

20

required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Dkt. 10, Court’s Order of June

21

30, 2017). Plaintiff was admonished that “[f]ailure to file a timely response to th[e] Order to Show

22

Cause may result in the action being dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply

23

with the orders of the court, pursuant to Local Rule 41.” (Id.). As of the date of this Order plaintiff

24

has not responded to the Order to Show Cause nor filed a proof of service of summons and

25

complaint on defendant.

26

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court, on its own initiative,

27

“must dismiss the action without prejudice” if service is not effected “within 90 days after the

28

complaint is filed[.]” In addition, a district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or

1

to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626,

2

629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962) (authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute necessary to avoid

3

undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

4

1258, 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915, 113 S.Ct. 321 (1992) (district court may dismiss

5

action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and

6

should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this

7

extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.),

8

cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829, 107 S.Ct. 112 (1986). These factors include: (1) the public’s interest

9

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

10

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

11

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Id.; Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th

12

Cir. 1986).

13

Pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) and the Court’s inherent power to achieve the orderly and

14

expeditious disposition of cases, Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30, 82 S.Ct. at 1388, and in light of the

15

factors outlined in Henderson, supra, dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to effect

16

service within the specified time and comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on June

17

30, 2017, is appropriate.

18

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action,

19

without prejudice, for failure to effect service and comply with the orders of this Court.

20

Dated this 17th day of July, 2017.
/s/
Fernando M. Olguin
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2