In Re Kimberely Martin-Bragg

Filing 13

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. The Court DISMISSES the appeal and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (rolm)

Before dismissing an action for either failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or
failure to follow the local rules, a court must weigh several 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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)
(failure to follow local rules); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to
prosecute or to comply with a court order). The Court need not weigh these factors explicitly.
See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53–54.
The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Both the Court and the public benefit from
the expeditious resolution of this action because further delay will impede judicial efficiency. See
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“fail[ing] to pursue the case for almost four months” favors
dismissal). Additional delay will also prejudice Appellees, forcing them to spend needless
resources on contesting this matter; in fact, Appellant has already unreasonably delayed this
action without explanation. See Sw. Marine Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“Unreasonable delay is the foundation upon which a court may presume prejudice.”).
Moreover, less drastic sanctions are not realistic: Appellant has yet to pursue this case in any
meaningful way since the filing of the Notice of Appeal, failed to timely respond to the OSC, and
is unlikely to vigorously pursue the action in the future.
Additionally, absent any showing to the contrary, the Court finds that Appellant “is
subject to the requirements of the Vexatious Litigant Order, and Moore has not complied with its
terms,” for the same reasons that Judge Gee identified in an appeal of the same underlying
action. In re Debtor Kimberly Martin Bragg., C.D. Cal. Case No. 22-3451-DMG, Order
Dismissing Appeal (Dkt. No. 15). Appellant’s violation of the Vexatious Litigant Order provides
a second, independent reason to dismiss the appeal. See id.
For the reasons above, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and DIRECTS the Clerk to
close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk mg