Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. v. Sun Serenity Spa et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to Prosecute, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/8/16. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:15-cv-01204-DAD-SMS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE

SUN SERENITY SPA and JACQUIE
PEREZ,
Defendants.

17
18

On February 12, 2016, this court issued an order declining to adopt findings and

19

recommendations recommending that plaintiff‟s motion for default judgment be granted but that

20

the injunctive relief and attorney‟s fees requested by plaintiff be denied. (Doc. No. 20.) This

21

order noted the denial of the motion for default judgment was specifically without prejudice to

22

plaintiff submitting “a second, fully supported, motion for entry of default judgment.” (Doc. No.

23

20 at 4.) More than ninety days elapsed with no word from plaintiff‟s counsel. Accordingly, on

24

May 25, 2016, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to show cause why the action should

25

not be dismissed in its entirety due to plaintiff‟s failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff

26

responded on June 7, 2016, stating that since the filing of the court‟s February 12, 2016 order,

27

“Zeltiq has sought to identify specific instances of confusion and/or monetary loss, but has

28

concluded that it would not be able to supply sufficiently detailed information to satisfy the
1

1

Court‟s requirements as set forth in its February 12 Order at this time in this matter.” (Doc. No.

2

22 at 1.)

3

Somewhat surprisingly, plaintiff now suggests it “agrees to the recommendations

4

originally submitted by the Magistrate Judge on December 18, 2015,” and wishes to have the

5

motion for default judgment granted, despite the fact no relief would be granted along with it.

6

(Doc. No. 22 at 2.) The undersigned already declined to adopt the findings and recommendations

7

in the February 12, 2016 order and, as that order explained, the reasons for doing so were not

8

based upon plaintiff‟s perceived position. (See Doc. No. 20.)

9

Rather, the ability to grant some relief at the end of a case is paramount to a court‟s ability

10

to hear cases, because redressability is part of the doctrine of standing. See DaimlerChrysler

11

Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006) (“A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable

12

to the defendant‟s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.”)

13

(emphasis added). Standing is a constitutional requirement which implicates not only plaintiff‟s

14

ability to bring a case, but also the court‟s ability to hear a case. See id. (“The „core component‟

15

of the requirement that a litigant have standing to invoke the authority of a federal court „is an

16

essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.‟”) (quoting

17

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). The case-or-controversy requirement

18

of Article III requires federal courts to “avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law.”

19

Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969). See also Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401–02 (1975)

20

(“[A federal court‟s] judgments must resolve „a real and substantial controversy admitting of

21

specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion

22

advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.‟”) (quoting North Carolina v.

23

Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)) (emphasis added). An entry of judgment without any relief is,

24

essentially, an advisory opinion that defendant here violated the law. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a

25

Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 107 (1998) (“Relief that does not remedy the injury suffered cannot

26

bootstrap a plaintiff into federal court.”). The entry of judgment that plaintiff now wants in no

27

way remedies any wrongs suffered, because it would create no enforceable right against

28

defendant.
2

1

The court‟s order to show cause required plaintiff to present a reason why the court should

2

not dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff‟s response indicates, in essence, that it will

3

not further prosecute this action by filing a properly supported motion for default judgment.

4

(Doc. No. 22.) The order to show cause is therefore not discharged and, accordingly, this case is

5

dismissed due to plaintiff‟s failure to prosecute. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d

6

393, 400 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The district court has the inherent power sua sponte to dismiss a case

7

for lack of prosecution.”) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

June 8, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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