Richard Nassar v. American Express National Bank

Filing 17

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Order (1) DISMISSING Plaintiffs Complaint for Failure to Comply withCourt Orders; (2) VACATING the September 30, 2024 Hearing; and (3)DIRECTING the Clerk to Close the Case 14 . SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (twdb)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 24-0986 JGB (SHKx)

Date September 26, 2024

Title Richard Nassar v American Express National Bank
Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order (1) DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Comply with
Court Orders; (2) VACATING the September 30, 2024 Hearing; and (3)
DIRECTING the Clerk to Close the Case (IN CHAMBERS)

On May 10, 2024, pro se plaintiff Richard Nassar (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
defendant American Express National Bank (“Defendant”). (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On
July 5, 2024, Defendant answered. (“Answer,” Dkt. No. 10.)
On August 1, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action.
(“MTC” or “Motion,” Dkt. No. 14.) On September 4, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff Nassar
to file an opposition or a notice of non-opposition by September 16, 2024. (“Order to Show
Cause” or “OSC,” Dkt. No. 16.) As the Court noted in its OSC, Plaintiff had failed to file
opposition papers pursuant to Local Rule 7-9 (“L.R. 7-9”). (Id.) The OSC warned Plaintiff that
“[f]ailure to comply with this Court’s order may result in the granting of Defendant’s Motion, or
dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint.” (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has still not filed an opposition, a
notice of non-opposition, or requested an extension of time.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss
actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). Plaintiffs must prosecute their cases
with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,
542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s OSC by the Courtordered deadline.

Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk RAM

Before dismissing an action for either failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or
failure to follow the local rules, a court must weigh several 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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)
(failure to follow local rules); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to
prosecute or to comply with a court order). The Court need not weigh these factors explicitly.
See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53–54.
The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Both the Court and the public benefit from
the expeditious resolution of this action because further delay will impede judicial efficiency. See
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“fail[ing] to pursue the case for almost four months” favors
dismissal). Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed this action by refusing to meet and confer with
Defendant regarding its Motion (See Motion at 2), then failing to comply with L.R. 7-9 and this
Court’s OSC without explanation. Additional delay will prejudice Defendant. See Sw. Marine
Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Unreasonable delay is the foundation upon
which a court may presume prejudice.”). Moreover, less drastic sanctions are not realistic. The
Court has already issued an Order to Show Cause, which fulfilled its “obligation to warn the
plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). “[A]
district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal
can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (quoting
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132–33 (9th Cir. 1987)). In sum, the Court concludes
that four of the five factors weigh in favor of dismissing this action in its entirety. See Pagtalunan,
291 F.3d at 643 (affirming dismissal where three factors favored dismissal).
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with court
orders and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk RAM