Brian Whitaker v. Another Project LLC
Filing
14
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
BRIAN WHITAKER,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
ANOTHER PROJECT LLC,
14
15
16
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 20-10112 FMO (JEMx)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
17
On November 30, 2020, the court issued a Standing Order Re: ADA Accessibility Cases
18
(see Dkt. 10, Court’s Order of November 30, 2020), which ordered plaintiff Brian Whitaker
19
(“plaintiff”) to file a request for entry of default no later than seven days after the time the response
20
to the complaint would have been due by the defendant. (Id. at 2). The court admonished plaintiff
21
that “failure to seek entry of default within seven [] days after the deadline to file a response to the
22
complaint shall result in the dismissal of the action and/or the defendant against whom entry of
23
default should have been sought.” (Id. at 2-3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R.
24
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962)).
25
Here, defendant Another Project LLC (“defendant”) was served with the summons and
26
complaint on November 17, 2020, by substituted service, and the summons and complaint were
27
mailed to defendant on November 18, 2020. (See Dkt. 9, Proof of Service at 1). Accordingly,
28
defendant’s responsive pleading to the Complaint was due no later than December 21, 2020. See
1
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(a) (Substituted service “is deemed complete on the 10th day after
2
the mailing”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). As of the date of this Order, defendant
3
has not answered the Complaint, nor has plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. (See,
4
generally, Dkt.).
5
A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders.
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30, 82 S.Ct. at 1388 (authority to dismiss for failure
7
to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court
8
calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss
9
action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and
10
should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this
11
extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986).
12
These factors include: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s
13
need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability
14
of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.”
15
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); see
16
Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (“By its plain text,
17
a Rule 41(b) dismissal . . . requires ‘a court order’ with which an offending plaintiff failed to
18
comply.”). “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings
19
in order to show that it has considered these factors and [the Ninth Circuit] may review the record
20
independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
21
1261.
22
Having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that this action should
23
be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s failure to
24
file a request for entry of default hinders the court’s ability to move this case toward disposition and
25
indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action.
26
“noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing [him] to
27
control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990
28
(9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, plaintiff was warned that failure to file
2
In other words, plaintiff’s
1
a request for entry of default would result in a dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and
2
failure to comply with a court order. (See Dkt. 10, Court’s Order of November 30, 2020, at 2-3);
3
see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey
4
the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration of alternatives requirement.”)
5
(internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is
6
persuaded that the instant action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and
7
failure to prosecute.
8
9
10
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action,
without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court.
Dated this 6th day of January, 2021.
/s/
Fernando M. Olguin
United States District Judge
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?