Maria Garcia v. Lyons Equity, LLC et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court. (iv)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MARIA GARCIA,

11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

LYONS EQUITY, LLC,
Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 24-7334 FMO (PDx)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

17

On September 12, 2024, the court issued a Standing Order Re: Disability Cases (see Dkt.

18

10, Court’s Order of September 12, 2024), which ordered plaintiff to file a request for entry of

19

default no later than seven days after the time the response to the complaint would have been due

20

by the defendant. (Id. at 2). The court admonished plaintiff that “failure to seek entry of default

21

within seven [] days after the deadline to file a response to the complaint shall result in the

22

dismissal of the action and/or the defendant against whom entry of default should have been

23

sought.” (Id. at 2-3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30,

24

82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962)).

25

Here, defendant was served with the summons and complaint on November 26, 2024, by

26

personal service. (See Dkt. 11, Proof of Service). Accordingly, defendant’s responsive pleading

27

to the Complaint was due no later than December 17, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a). As of the

28

1

date of this Order, defendant has not answered the complaint, nor has plaintiff filed a request for

2

entry of default. (See, generally, Dkt.).

3

A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders.

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30, 82 S.Ct. at 1388 (authority to dismiss for failure

5

to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court

6

calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss

7

action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and

8

should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this

9

extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986).

10

These factors include: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s

11

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability

12

of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.”

13

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); see

14

Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (“By its plain text,

15

a Rule 41(b) dismissal . . . requires ‘a court order’ with which an offending plaintiff failed to

16

comply.”). “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings

17

in order to show that it has considered these factors and [the Ninth Circuit] may review the record

18

independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

19

1261.

20

Having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that this action should

21

be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s failure to

22

file a request for entry of default hinders the court’s ability to move this case toward disposition and

23

indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action.

24

“noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing [her] to

25

control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990

26

(9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, plaintiff was warned that failure to file

27

a request for entry of default would result in a dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and

28

failure to comply with a court order. (See Dkt. 10, Court’s Order of September 12, 2024, at 2-3);
2

In other words, plaintiff’s

1

see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey

2

the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration of alternatives requirement.”)

3

(internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is

4

persuaded that the instant action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and

5

failure to prosecute.

6

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action,

7

without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court.

8

Dated this 6th day of January, 2025.
/s/
Fernando M. Olguin
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3