Jack Eskenazi v. Rural Community Hospitals of America et al

Filing 24

MINUTE (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to Comply with Court's Order by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-17-6172-MWF (PJWx)
Date: November 20, 2017
Title:
Jack Eskenazi d/b/a American Health Care Capital v. Rural Community
Hospitals of America, et al.
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
Deputy Clerk:
Rita Sanchez

Court Reporter:
Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER
In June 2017, Plaintiff commenced an action against Rural Community
Hospitals of America (“RCHA”), Paul L. Nusbaum (RCHA and Nusbaum together, the
“RCHA Defendants”), Empower Healthcare LLC (“Empower”), Rural Health Partners,
LLC (“RHP”), and Jorge A. Perez (Empower, RHP, and Perez collectively, the “Perez
Defendants”) in Superior Court. (See Complaint (Docket No. 1) at 7-16). On August
21, 2017, the RCHA Defendants removed the case, invoking this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. (See Notice of Removal (“NoR”) (Docket No. 1 at 1-3)).
On August 25, 2017, the RCHA Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction. (the “PJ Motion”) (Docket No. 7). On October 19, 2017,
following a hearing, the Court issued an Order granting the PJ Motion. (the “October
19 Order”) (Docket No. 23). In the October 19 Order, the Court expressed doubts that
it had personal jurisdiction over the Perez Defendants (each of which is seemingly
domiciled in Florida, none of which would be subject to specific jurisdiction based
upon the allegations in the Complaint, and none of which has appeared), and ordered
Plaintiff to show cause, by no later than November 6, 2017, why the action against the
Perez Defendants should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, without
prejudice to proceeding in another court that has personal jurisdiction. (the “OSC”).
Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC.
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-17-6172-MWF (PJWx)
Date: November 20, 2017
Title:
Jack Eskenazi d/b/a American Health Care Capital v. Rural Community
Hospitals of America, et al.
It is well-established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s
action due to his failure to prosecute and/or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (noting that
district court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent
undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in district court
calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that district
court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the court).
Before ordering dismissal, the Court must consider 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 Defendant; (4) the public policy favoring the
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.
See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963
F.2d at 1260–61 (failure to comply with court orders).
Taking all of these factors into account, dismissal for lack of prosecution and
failure to comply with the OSC is warranted. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to
treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2