Joshua Cuevas v. Pirooz Amona
Filing
15
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Taking all of factors into account, dismissal for lack of prosecution is warranted. Plaintiff has failed to show that proper service was made, or that, if made, Plaintiff has proceeded to prosecute this action. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 21-5772 MWF (JDEx)
Title:
Joshua Cuevas v. Pirooz Amona, et al.
Date: November 17, 2021
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 ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff Joshua Cuevas commenced this action against
Defendant Pirooz Amona. (Complaint (Docket No. 1)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiff must have served the Complaint by October 14, 2021.
On September 28, 2021, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show
cause (“OSC”), by no later than October 14, 2021, why the action should not be
dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Docket No. 13).
On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service in response to the OSC
(the “POS”). (Docket No. 14). The POS is deficient in that it reflects substituted
service on October 12, 2021, but it does not include the name of the person with whom
the documents were left, nor does it include a declaration of diligence or the
subsequent required mailing.
It is well-established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s
action due to her 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).
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 21-5772 MWF (JDEx)
Title:
Joshua Cuevas v. Pirooz Amona, et al.
Date: November 17, 2021
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 is
warranted. Plaintiff has failed to show that proper service was made, or that, if made,
Plaintiff has proceeded to prosecute this action.
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
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?