Paul Butakov v. Oscar Insurance Company et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER by Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes. It is ordered that the action is dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb)

J S -6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL BUTAKOV,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 2:24-cv-09655-SSS (AGR)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A
COURT ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
OSCAR INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20

INTRODUCTION
On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Request to Proceed

21

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP request”). [Dkt. 1, 5]. Plaintiff raised several claims

22

related to the allegedly improper treatment of his heart condition. [Dkt. 1].

23

On December 18, 2024, the Court postponed ruling on the IFP request until

24

Plaintiff provided more information. [Dkt. 9]. Specifically, Plaintiff was ordered

25

to file an Amended Complaint against Oscar Insurance Company, because the

26

claims against the other Defendants were barred by res judicata or Eleventh

27

Amendment immunity. Id. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply with

28

the order would result in dismissal of the action. Id.

1

On January 27, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of 30 days to

2

file an Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 11]. The Court again warned Plaintiff that the

3

failure to comply with the order to file an Amended Complaint would result in

4

dismissal of the action.

5
6

As of this date, more than 30 days later, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended
Complaint or communicated with the Court.

7

DISCUSSION

8

A.

9

A district court has the inherent power under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Legal Standard.

10

41(b) to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with the court’s

11

order. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962). Specifically, the failure of

12

a plaintiff to comply with a district court’s order to file an amended complaint is

13

properly met with the sanction of dismissal under Rule 41(b). Applied

14

Underwriters, Inc., v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (collecting

15

cases). “Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails to amend his

16

complaint after the district judge dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, the

17

dismissal is typically considered a dismissal for failing to comply with a court order

18

rather than for failing to prosecute the claim.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191

19

F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999).

20

“[I]n order for a court to dismiss a case as a sanction, the district court must

21

consider five factors: ‘(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;

22

(2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;

23

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

24

availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986 (quoting

25

Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)). A district

26

court’s sanction of dismissal generally will be affirmed where at least four factors

27

support dismissal or where at least three factors strongly support it. Hernandez, 138

28

F.3d at 399. As stated below, four of the five factors support dismissal.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

B.

Analysis.
1.

The Public’s Interest in Expeditious Resolution.

The first factor supports dismissal. “[T]he public’s interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990.
2.

The Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket

The second factor also supports dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to

7

the Court’s Order interferes with the Court’s ability to manage its docket. See

8

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The trial judge is in the

9

best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with

10

docket management and the public interest. Arguably, Pagtalunan’s petition has

11

consumed some of the court’s time that could have been devoted to other cases on

12

the docket.”) (internal citation omitted); see also Irvin v. Madrid, 749 F. App’x

13

546, 547 (9th Cir. 2019) (“The second factor also favors dismissal because the

14

district court is in the best position to determine whether a particular set of

15

circumstances interferes with docket management.”).

16
17

3.

The Risk of Prejudice to Defendants.

The third factor also supports dismissal. The risk of prejudice is “related to the

18

plaintiff’s reason for defaulting in failing to timely amend.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at

19

991. The record suggests no apparent reason for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or

20

respond to the Court’s latest Order. This indicates sufficient prejudice to Defendant.

21

See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (recognizing that the law

22

presumes injury to the defendants from unreasonable delay).

23

4.

The Public Policy Favoring Disposition of the Merits.

24

The fourth factor weighs against dismissal. “We have often said that the

25

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits strongly counsels against

26

dismissal.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460

27

F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399). On the other

28

hand, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a
3

1

case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that

2

direction.” Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1228 (citations and quotation

3

marks omitted). Thus, this factor alone does not preclude dismissal.

4

5.

5

The Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives.

The fifth factor supports dismissal. “Here the fact that the [Court] allowed

6

[Plaintiff] an additional thirty days to amend his complaint . . . constituted an

7

attempt at a less drastic sanction than outright dismissal.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

8

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court also warned Plaintiff that the failure to

9

comply with the Court’s Order to amend his Complaint would result in dismissal.

10

See Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1229 (“Warning that failure to obey a

11

court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’

12

requirement.”) (citing, inter alia, Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“Moreover, our

13

decisions also suggest that a district court’s warning to a party that his failure to

14

obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of

15

alternatives’ requirement.”)). Despite the Court’s warning, Plaintiff has failed to

16

file an Amended Complaint.

17

C.

18

Four of the five factors support dismissal of the action for failure to comply

19

Conclusion.

with an Order of the Court. In sum, dismissal without prejudice is warranted.

20

ORDER

21

It is ordered that the action is dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

41(b).

23
24

DATED: March 5, 2025

25
26
27

SUNSHINE S. SYKES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
4