Johnson v. Sandhu et al

Filing 11

ORDER of DISMISSAL ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/14/12 ORDERING that Defendant Pauline Lourence Ranch, L.P. is DISMISSED with prejudice. Further, the Status Conference scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on 3/4/13, is VACATED since a status (pretrial scheduling) order concerning the remaining parties was previously entered. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Scott N. Johnson,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11
12
13
14

Gurenderjeet Singh Sandhu,
Individually and d/b/a Discount
Market & Liquor; Pauline
Lourence Ranch, L.P.,
Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-01448-GEB-EFB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

15

Plaintiff was required to respond to an Order filed September

16

21, 2012, by either “fil[ing] whatever documents are required to

17

prosecute this case as a default matter as to [Defendant Pauline

18

Lourence Ranch, L.P.], or Show[ing] Cause in a writing filed why this

19

defendant should not be dismissed for failure of prosecution” no later

20

than November 5, 2012. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the

21

September

22

considers whether Defendant Pauline Lourence Ranch, L.P. should be

23

dismissed for failure of prosecution.

24
25
26
27
28

21,

2012

Order

by

this

deadline.

Therefore,

the

Court

When considering whether to dismiss a party for failure to
prosecute, a court must consider:
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution
of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its
docket;
(3)
the
risk
of
prejudice
to
defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of
less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public

1

1

policy favoring
merits.

disposition

of

cases

on

their

2
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).
3
The first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal in
4
this case since Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute has impaired the
5
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and undermines
6
the Court’s ability to manage its docket. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,
7
191

F.3d

983,

990

(9th

Cir.

1999)(“[T]he

public’s

interest

in

8
expeditious

resolution

of

litigation

always

favors

dismissal.”);

9
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage
10
its

docket

without

being

subject

to

routine

noncompliance

of

11
litigants[.]”).
12
The third factor concerning the risk of prejudice to Defendant
13
considers the strength of a party’s excuse for non-compliance. See
14
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (“[T]he risk of prejudice [is related] to
15
the plaintiff’s reason for defaulting.”). Since Plaintiff has provided
16
no

reason

for

his

non-compliance,

the

third

factor

also

favors

17
dismissal.
18
The fourth factor concerning whether the Court has considered
19
less

drastic

sanctions,

also

weighs

in

favor

of

dismissal

since

20
Plaintiff failed respond to the September 21, 2012 Order despite the
21
warning that Defendant Pauline Lourence Ranch, L.P. could be dismissed
22
with prejudice as a result. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262
23
(9th Cir. 1992)(“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his
24
failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy
25
the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.”).
26
The

fifth

factor

concerning

the

public

policy

favoring

27
disposition

of

cases

on

their

merits,

28
2

weighs

against

dismissal.

1

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of cases

2

on the merits.”).

3

Since the balance of the factors strongly favors dismissal of

4

Defendant Pauline Lourence Ranch, L.P. with prejudice, this defendant is

5

dismissed with prejudice.

6

Further, the status conference scheduled to commence at 9:00

7

a.m. on March 4, 2013, is vacated since a status (pretrial scheduling)

8

order concerning the remaining parties was previously entered.

9

Dated:

November 14, 2012

10
11
12

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

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