Daniel Beck et al v. Weston J. Palmer et al

Filing 47

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims by failing to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with a Court order. The Court will issue a Judgment consistent with this order. (See document for further details). (aco)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 23-4525 PA (MARx)

Title

Daniel Beck, et al. v. Weston Palmer, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 4, 2024

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

On May 15, 2024, the Court ordered plaintiffs Daniel Beck, Cedric Crisolo, and Caroline
Le (collectively “Plaintiffs”), who are represented by counsel, by no later than May 28, 2024, to
either file a dismissal without prejudice of their claims against defendant Weston Palmer
(“Palmer”) in this action (if they now intend to pursue their claims in the bankruptcy case) or, in
the alternative, to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without
prejudice and/or administratively closed pending further developments in the bankruptcy case.
The Court explicitly warned, “[f]ailure to timely and adequately respond to this Order may,
without further warning, result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.” As of today’s
date, Plaintiffs have not filed anything in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.
The Court may dismiss with prejudice an action or claim sua sponte if “the plaintiff fails
to prosecute or to comply with the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order.” See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (dismissal for failure to
prosecute); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 987–88 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal for
failure to comply with court order). This inherent power supports the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases. See Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30; Yourish, 191 F.3d at 987-88; Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).
In Henderson v. Duncan, the Ninth Circuit set forth five factors for a district court to
consider before resorting to the penalty of dismissal: “(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 on their merits and (5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions.” 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal is
appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal, or where at least three factors
‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)
(internal citations omitted) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263). Cases involving sua sponte
dismissal warrant special focus on the fifth Henderson factor. Id.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 23-4525 PA (MARx)

Date

Title

Daniel Beck, et al. v. Weston Palmer, et al.

June 4, 2024

Here, an evaluation of the Henderson factors ultimately weighs in favor of the Court’s
decision to dismiss this action. In assessing the first Henderson factor, the public’s interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation will be satisfied by a dismissal. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza,
291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (“[t]he public’s interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”)). Relatedly, with respect to the
second factor, the Court’s need to manage its docket will be served by dismissal. See id. (“The
trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes
with docket management and the public interest.”). The third Henderson factor at least
marginally favors dismissal because defendant may be further prejudiced unless the complaint is
dismissed. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991.
Finally, in considering the fourth and fifth Henderson factors, the Court notes that
Plaintiffs were warned about the consequences of failing to respond to the Court’s Order to
Show Cause. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have taken no action. On this record, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs have abandoned prosecution of this action in this Court, and any less drastic
alternatives to dismissal would be inadequate to remedy Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and obey
Court orders. Because the Court has adopted the “less-drastic” sanction of dismissal without
prejudice, and Plaintiffs remain free to pursue their claims against Palmer in the bankruptcy
proceeding, the fifth Henderson factor favors dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (district court should first consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal with
prejudice).
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims by failing to respond to the
Court’s Order to Show Cause. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of
prosecution and for failure to comply with a Court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also
Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986-88; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. The Court will issue a Judgment
consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2