Mead v. Multi-Chem Group, LLC, Haliburton
Filing
13
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Action Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply With the Court's Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/27/2013. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KAYLA MEAD,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
MULTI-CHEM GROUP, LLC, et al.
Defendants.
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-01186 - LJO - JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS
Kayla Mead (“Plaintiff”) initiated an action against Multi-Chem Group, LLC and Haliburton
17
18
Energy Services, Inc., in Kern County Superior Court. However, since the removal of the action to
19
this Court, Plaintiff has not taken any action to prosecute the action and failed to appear at the Court’s
20
scheduling conference on November 12, 2013. Because Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and
21
failed to comply with the Court’s orders, it is hereby recommended that the action be DISMISSED
22
WITH PREJUDICE.
23
I.
24
Procedural History
Defendants Multi-Chem Group LLC and Haliburton Energy Services, Inc. removed this action
25
from Kern County Superior Court on July 29, 2013, thereby initiating the matter in this Court. (Doc. 1.)
26
On July 30, 2013, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to Plaintiff’s counsel Catalina Manzano,
27
informing her that she must submit a petition to practice in the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 7.)
28
However, she failed to do so. Therefore, on November 4, 2013, the Court issued an order to Ms.
1
1
Manzano to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her practicing in this Court without
2
seeking membership, in violation of Local Rule 180(b) which restricts practice in this Court only to
3
those who are members. (Doc. 7.) Ms. Manzano was ordered to either show cause why sanctions
4
should not be imposed or, in the alternative, to petition for membership to the Court within fourteen
5
days of the date of service, or no later than November 19, 2013. (Doc. 7 at 1-2.) Ms. Manzano has
6
failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order.
7
In addition, on July 30, 2013, the Court issued its “Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling
8
Conference,” which “ordered that [the parties] appear for a formal Scheduling Conference…” (Doc. 3
9
at 1). The Court explained: “Attendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory upon each party
10
not represented by counsel or, alternatively, by retained counsel.” (Id. at 2) (emphasis in original).
11
Further, the parties were ordered to prepare a Joint Scheduling Report and file this report one week
12
prior to the Scheduling Conference. (Id.)
On October 5, 2013, Defendants filed a Scheduling Report, informing the Court that they met
13
14
and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel “and provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a proposed Joint Rule
15
26(f) Report.” (Doc. 8 at 1.) However, “just prior to the Parties’ deadline to submit the report
16
Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defendants’ counsel that she was ill and needed additional time to review
17
the proposed Joint Rule 26(f) Report.” (Id. at 1-2.) Notably, however, Plaintiff’s counsel did not notify
18
the Court of her illness or seek leave of the Court for an extension of time or continuance of the
19
Scheduling Conference. Therefore, the Court issued a second order to show cause to Plaintiff on
20
November 12, 2013, directing her to show cause why sanctions, including dismissal of the action with
21
prejudice, should not be imposed for her failure to prosecute the action, failure to appear at the
22
Scheduling Conference, and failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff was directed
23
to respond within fourteen days of service, or no later than November 26, 2013. (Id. at 2.) Again,
24
Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order.
25
II.
26
Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
27
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
28
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent
2
1
power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including
2
dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
3
1986). A court may dismiss an action based upon a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to
4
obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.
5
32, 44, (1991) (recognizing a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”);
6
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an
7
order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.
8
1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order).
9
III.
10
Discussion and Analysis
To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order,
11
or failure to comply with the Local Rules, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the
12
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3)
13
the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
14
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also
15
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.
16
In the case at hand, the public’s interest in resolving this litigation. See Yourish v. California
17
Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
18
litigation always favors dismissal”). Similarly, the Court’s has an interest in managing its docket, given
19
that the Eastern District of California is one of the busiest federal jurisdictions in the United States and
20
its District Judges carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation. Because Plaintiff has shown no interest in
21
prosecuting her claims and failed to comply with the Courts Orders, the Court’s interest in managing its
22
docket weighs in favor of dismissal. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have
23
inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). In
24
addition, the risk of prejudice to the defendants weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of
25
injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v.
26
Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
27
28
In the Order to Show Cause dated November 12, 2013, the Court warned the matter may be
dismissed with prejudice for “failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure
3
1
to comply with local rules.” (Doc. 12 at 2.) The Court’s warning to Plaintiff that her failure to
2
comply would result in dismissal satisfies the requirement that the Court consider less drastic
3
measures. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate
4
warning that dismissal would result from her failure to prosecute the action. Given these facts, the
5
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal.
6
IV.
7
Findings and Recommendations
Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to comply with the Local Rules, and failed to comply with the
8
Court’s order dated November 4, 2013 to petition for membership in this Court (Doc. 7). In addition,
9
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the Court’s Order Setting
10
Mandatory Scheduling Conference (Doc. 3) and Order to Show Cause dated November 12, 2013
11
(Doc. 12). The factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of dismissal of the action.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:
13
1.
This action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
14
2.
The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this action.
15
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
16
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
17
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen
18
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written
19
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
20
Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
21
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
22
(9th Cir. 1991).
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 27, 2013
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?