Clare Jacobs v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. It is ordered that the action is dismissed without prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv)

1
JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLARE JACOBS,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 2:24-cv-10724-FMO (MAR)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A
COURT ORDER

SONY PICTURES
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al.,
Defendant.
On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Request to Proceed

19

in Forma Pauperis (“IFP request”). (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff

20

alleged several forms of employment discrimination. (ECF No. 1.)

21

On December 18, 2024, the Court postponed a ruling on Plaintiff’s IFP

22

request for 30 days. (ECF No. 7.) Specifically, Plaintiff was ordered to file an

23

Amended Complaint curing the pleading deficiencies of her original Complaint,

24

which was too conclusory to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (Id.)

25

The Order warned Plaintiff that her failure to comply within thirty days would

26

result in dismissal of the action. (Id.)

27
28

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

1

DISCUSSION

2

A.

3

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

Legal Standard.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

cases). “Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails to amend [her]

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23
24
25
26
27
28

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
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

circumstances interferes with docket management.”).

10
11

3.

The Risk of Prejudice to Defendants.

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

presumes injury to the defendants from unreasonable delay).

17

4.

The Public Policy Favoring Disposition of the Merits.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
27
28

5.

The Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives.

The fifth factor supports dismissal. “Here the fact that the [Court] allowed
[Plaintiff] an additional thirty days to amend [her] complaint . . . constituted an
3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Amended Complaint.

11

C.

12

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

Conclusion.

13

with an Order of the Court. Moreover, the severity of the sanction is lessened

14

because the dismissal is without prejudice rather than with prejudice, thereby

15

“giving the plaintiff an opportunity to return and prosecute [her] claims another

16

day.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 497 (9th Cir. 1984). In sum, dismissal without

17

prejudice is warranted.

18

ORDER

19

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

20

41(b).

21
22

DATED: January 28, 2025

23
24
25

/s/
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
4