(PC) Dubrin et al v. Bonilla

Filing 167

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending to Dismiss Plaintiffs Joaquin Coronado and Aaron Prange for their Failure to Prosecute this Action signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 04/05/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 5/1/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DUBRIN, et al.,

12

Case No. 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT (PC)
Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

13

(Docs. 155, 159, 160)

v.

14

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS JOAQUIN
CORONADO AND AARON PRANGE FOR
THEIR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS
ACTION

STAINER, et al.,

15
16

21-DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mark Ravis, filed a motion to withdraw from representation of Joaquin

19

Coronado and Aaron Prange. (Doc. 155.) As of the date, Mr. Ravis filed his motion, he reported

20

that he has spent several months trying to contact them but received no response to

21

correspondence sent to each of their last known addresses. (Id., at 3.) Mr. Ravis’ motion to

22

withdraw from their representation was granted on February 14, 2017, in an order which also

23

required Mr. Coronado and Mr. Prange to show cause within twenty-one days why they should

24

not be dismissed from this action for their apparent abandonment and failure to prosecute it

25

(“OSC”). (Doc. 160.)

26

Subsequently, Mr. Coronado sent a signed Payee Data Record to Mr. Ravis. (Doc. 166.)

27

Mr. Ravis submitted a status report advising of this and that Mr. Coronado’s mother informed

28

him that she would immediately get Mr. Coronado to sign the settlement agreement. (Id.)
1

1

However, Mr. Coronado has not submitted anything in response to the OSC and there is no

2

showing he has executed the settlement agreement.

3

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that

4

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los

5

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action

6

for failure to comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh "(1) the public=s interest in

7

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

8

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

9

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products

10

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations

11

omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be

12

met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).

13

Joaquin Coronado and Aaron Prange are no longer prosecuting this action despite being

14

notified of the requirement to respond via the OSC which issued on February 14, 2017. The

15

Court cannot afford to expend additional resources in seeking to interest them in their own

16

litigation and it will not continue to delay a case over five years old due to their lack of interest.

17

Based on Plaintiff=s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the February 14, 2017 OSC,

18

there is no alternative but to dismiss them from the action for their failure to prosecute. Id. This

19

action can proceed no further without the cooperation of and compliance with court orders by

20

Joaquin Coronado and Aaron Prange. This action has lingered long enough and cannot remain

21

unprosecuted and idle on the Court's docket. Id.

22

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs Joaquin Coronado and Aaron

23

Prange be dismissed from this action with prejudice for their failure to prosecute. In re PPA, 460

24

F.3d at 1226; Local Rule 110.

25

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

26

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21

27

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

28

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's
2

1

Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

2

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

3

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 5, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3