Grace Cho v. Maria Monroy et al
Filing
21
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court. (iv)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GRACE CHO,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIA MONROY, et al.,
15
16
17
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 19-10416 FMO (RAOx)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
18
On November 2, 2020, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for default
19
judgment without prejudice, (see Dkt. 20, Court’s Order of November 2, 2020), which ordered
20
plaintiff to file a renewed motion for default judgment no later than November 13, 2020. (See id.
21
at 4). The court admonished plaintiff that “failure to file a renewed motion for default judgment by
22
[November 13, 2020] shall result in . . . the action against defendants being dismissed for failure
23
to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order.” (Id. at 4) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v.
24
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962)). As of the date of this
25
order, plaintiff has not filed a renewed motion for default judgment. (See, generally, Dkt.).
26
A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders.
27
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30, 82 S.Ct. at 1388 (authority to dismiss for failure
28
to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court
1
calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss
2
action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and
3
should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this
4
extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986).
5
These factors include: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s
6
need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability
7
of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.”
8
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); see
9
Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (“By its plain text,
10
a Rule 41(b) dismissal . . . requires ‘a court order’ with which an offending plaintiff failed to
11
comply.”). “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings
12
in order to show that it has considered these factors and [the Ninth Circuit] may review the record
13
independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
14
1261.
15
Having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that this action should
16
be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s failure to
17
file the renewed motion for default judgment hinders the court’s ability to move this case toward
18
disposition and indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action. In other words,
19
plaintiff’s “noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing
20
[her] to control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d
21
983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, plaintiff was warned that
22
failure to file a renewed motion for default judgment would result in a dismissal of the action for
23
lack of prosecution and failure to comply with a court order. (See Dkt. 24, Court’s Order of
24
October 26, 2020, at 4); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“[A] district court’s warning to a party
25
that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration of
26
alternatives requirement.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, having considered the
27
Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that the instant action should be dismissed for failure
28
to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.
2
1
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action,
2
without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court.
3
Dated this 17th day of November, 2020.
4
/s/
Fernando M. Olguin
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?