Jeremy Lundblad v. Game 1, LLC et al

Filing 11

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned his claims by failing to file a First Amended Complaint. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 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 24-1674 PA (Ex)

Title

Jeremy Lundblad v. Game 1, LLC, 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 March 1, 2024 the Court dismissed the Complaint filed by plaintiff Jeremy Lundblad
(“Plaintiff”), with leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court ordered
Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint by no later than March 15, 2024. The Court
explicitly warned, “[f]ailure to file a First Amended Complaint by that date or to adequately
allege the Court’s jurisdiction may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of this action
without prejudice.” As of today’s date, Plaintiff has not filed a First Amended Complaint.
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.
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,
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 24-1674 PA (Ex)

Date

Title

Jeremy Lundblad v. Game 1, LLC, et al.

June 4, 2024

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
Plaintiff was warned about the consequences of failing to file a First Amended Complaint by the
Court’s deadline. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has taken no action. On this record, the Court finds
that Plaintiff has abandoned prosecution of this action, and any less drastic alternatives to
dismissal would be inadequate to remedy Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and obey Court orders.
Because the Court has adopted the “less-drastic” sanction of dismissal without prejudice, 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 Plaintiff has abandoned his claims by failing to file a First Amended
Complaint. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, 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