Hauge et al

Filing 44

ORDER DISMISSING Action for Failure to Obey a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/29/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

AL HAUGE, MARK HAUGE,

9
10
11
12
13

Case No. 1: 12-cv-02009-BAM

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

v.
ADRIATIC INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter was set for a status conference for May 29, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (Doc. 42.) The

17

plaintiffs were informed that at the status conference, plaintiffs Al Hauge and Mark Hauge should be

18

prepared to discuss how they intend to proceed against the remaining defendant. Plaintiffs did not

19

appear at the status conference. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States

20

Magistrate Judge and this case was assigned to the undersigned on April 4, 2013. (Doc. 24.)

21
22
23

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants. (Doc. 1.)

24

Plaintiffs allege they entered into an agreement whereby Defendants would procure insurance for

25

Plaintiffs’ “car hauling” business. Id. at ¶¶ 9-13. Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to procure

26

adequate insurance pursuant to the terms of the agreement, and subsequently suffered an economic

27
28

1

1

loss when a hail storm damaged one of Plaintiffs’ delivery trucks and six automobiles being

2

transported. Id. at ¶ 14. Defendant Adriatic Insurance Co has settled and been released. The

3

remaining defendant has been defaulted.

4

The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Singh on October

5

10, 2013 for failure to present sufficient facts, evidence and legal analysis. On March 14, 2014, the

6

Court allowed Plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw from the case. On April 18, 2014, the Court set a status

7

conference to discuss how Plaintiffs, proceeding in pro per, intend to proceed against the remaining

8

defendant Singh. Plaintiffs were instructed that if they do not intend on proceeding in this case, they

9

may file a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). In the order setting the status

10

conference, plaintiffs were warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in

11

dismissal of their action.

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs did not appear at the status conference and did not file any document in compliance
with the Court’s order.
III.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with any

16

order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the

17

inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n

18

the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.”

19

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with

20

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to

21

comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

22

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal

23

for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

24

833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

25
26
27
28

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3)
2

1

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

2

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423

3

(9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988).

4

The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the

5

Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending

6

since December, 2012. One defendant has settled and the other defendant has been defaulted.

7

Plaintiffs have made no attempt to contact the Court or otherwise comply with the Court’s April 2014

8

order. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance awaiting such compliance by Plaintiffs. The third

9

factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury

10

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc.,

11

542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on

12

their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, the

13

court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the

14

“considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133;

15

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order issued on April 18, 2014, expressly stated “Failure to

16

comply with this order may result in sanctions against plaintiffs, including dismissal of this case.”

17

(ECF No. 42 (emphasis deleted).) Thus, Plaintiffs had adequate warning that dismissal could result

18

from noncompliance with the Court’s order.

19

For the reasons stated above, this action is DISMISSED based on Plaintiffs’ failure to obey the

20

Court’s order of April 18, 2014. The clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 29, 2014

25
26

28

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24

27

A. McAuliffe

3