Juan Valencia v. Lyons Auto 2001, Inc. et al

Filing 15

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

JUAN VALENCIA,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
LYONS AUTO 2001, INC., et al.,

14
15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. ED CV 24-1875 FMO (DTBx)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

16
17

On November 22, 2024, the court issued a Standing Order Re: Disability Cases (see Dkt.

18

12, Court’s Order of November 22, 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, defendants Lyons Auto 2001, Inc. and Paul Palmer Properties, Inc. were served with

26

the summons and complaint on September 25, 2024 and October 4, 2024, respectively, by

27

personal service. (See Dkts. 7 & 8, Proofs of Service). On December 2, 2024, the parties filed

28

a stipulation to extend the time to answer the complaint to December 27, 2024, (see Dkt. 13, Joint

1

Stipulation []), which the court granted. (See Dkt. 14, Court’s Order of December 3, 2024).

2

Accordingly, defendants’ responsive pleadings to the Complaint were due no later than December

3

27, 2024. As of the date of this Order, defendants have not answered the complaint, nor has

4

plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. (See, generally, Dkt.).

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

1261.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action.

26

noncompliance has caused the action to come to a halt, thereby allowing the plaintiff, rather than

27

the court, to control the pace of the docket.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig.,

28

460 F.3d 1217, 1234 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, plaintiff was warned that failure to file a request for
2

In other words, “plaintiff's

1

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

2

comply with a court order. (See Dkt. 12, Court’s Order of November 22, 2024 at 2-3); see also

3

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

4

order will result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration of alternatives requirement.”) (internal

5

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

6

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

7

prosecute.

8

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

9

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

10

Dated this 7th day of January, 2025.
/s/
Fernando M. Olguin
United States District Judge

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