Shannon O. Murphy v. AT and T

Filing 18

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION; ENTRY OF JUDGMENT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 23-07114-MWF (JCx)
Title:
Shannon O. Murphy v. AT and T

Date: March 15, 2024

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; ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT
On February 22, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration
(“Order Denying Reconsideration” (Docket No. 15)) that was filed in response to the
Court’s prior order where the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave
to amend as to Plaintiff’s claims. (Docket No 14). In the Order Denying
Reconsideration, the Court gave Plaintiff until March 1, 2024 to file a First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) and warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file a FAC will be construed
as the intention to stand on Plaintiff’s current inadequate claims, and thus the action
will be dismissed with prejudice.” (Order Denying Reconsideration at 2). As of
March 15, 2024, Plaintiff has not filed a FAC or any documents responsive to the
Order Denying Reconsideration.
It is well-established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s
action due to his failure to prosecute and/or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (noting that the
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).
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
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 23-07114-MWF (JCx)
Title:
Shannon O. Murphy v. AT and T

Date: March 15, 2024

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).
Taking all of these factors into account, dismissal for lack of prosecution is
warranted. Plaintiff was specifically warned that failure to file a FAC would result in
dismissal of this action with prejudice.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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.

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2