Iegorova v. Target Corporation
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/27/15 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Defendant's 7 motion to dismiss be denied as moot. The Clerk be directed to vacate all dates and close this case. Matter referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
No. 2:14-cv-3014-MCE-KJN PS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TARGET CORPORATION,
15
16
Defendant.
17
18
Presently pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was initially
19
filed on April 2, 2015, and set for hearing on May 7, 2015. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff failed to file
20
an opposition to the motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(c). Nevertheless, in light of
21
plaintiff’s pro se status and the court’s desire to resolve defendant’s motion on the merits, the
22
court continued the hearing on the motion and provided plaintiff with an additional opportunity to
23
file an opposition to the motion no later than May 21, 2015. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was
24
specifically cautioned that failure to file an opposition to the motion by the required deadline
25
would result in a recommendation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
26
Procedure 41(b). (Id.)
27
28
Although the applicable deadline has passed, plaintiff failed to file an opposition or
statement of non-opposition to the motion, nor has plaintiff even requested a further extension of
1
1
2
time to do so. As such, the court recommends dismissal at this juncture.
Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply
3
with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of
4
any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”
5
Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:
6
7
8
9
Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney
is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these
Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on
“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria
persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal,
judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these
Rules.
10
See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the
11
same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district
12
court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to
13
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or
14
fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local
15
rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act
16
sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S.
17
Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action
18
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute
19
or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
20
53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground
21
for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal
22
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with
23
any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
24
1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and
25
may impose sanctions including dismissal or default).
26
A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to
27
prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local
28
rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the court must consider:
2
1
2
(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
the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases
on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
3
4
Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Ghazali, 46
5
F.3d at 53. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that “[t]hese factors are not a series of
6
conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, but a way for a district judge to think
7
about what to do.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226
8
(9th Cir. 2006).
9
Although involuntary dismissal can be a harsh remedy, on balance the five relevant
10
factors weigh in favor of dismissal here. The first two Ferdik factors strongly support dismissal,
11
given that plaintiff’s failure twice to oppose defendant’s motion and failure to prosecute her case
12
have unreasonably delayed the progress of this litigation. The third Ferdik factor also favors
13
dismissal because, at a minimum, defendant has been hampered in its efforts to move this case
14
forward to a resolution on the merits. Additionally, the fifth Ferdik factor, which considers the
15
availability of less drastic measures, also supports dismissal. In this case, the court previously
16
pursued remedies that are less drastic than a recommendation of dismissal. Indeed, in an attempt
17
to avoid the harsh sanction of dismissal, the court previously provided plaintiff with an additional
18
opportunity to oppose defendant’s motion and specifically cautioned plaintiff regarding the
19
potential consequences of failure to timely comply with the court’s order. Furthermore, the court
20
finds no suitable alternative to dismissal at this juncture. Given plaintiff’s complete failure to
21
respond to the court’s orders and instructions, the imposition of monetary sanctions would be
22
futile, and the court is unable to frame any meaningful issue or evidentiary sanctions based on the
23
limited record before it. Finally, the court finds that the fourth Ferdik factor, which addresses the
24
public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, does not materially counsel against
25
dismissal. If anything, a disposition on the merits has been hindered by plaintiff’s own failure to
26
comply with the court’s orders and prosecute her case. In any event, the court finds that the
27
fourth Ferdik factor is outweighed by the other Ferdik factors.
28
Consequently, dismissal is appropriate.
3
1
Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
2
1. The action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
3
2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be denied as moot.
4
3. The Clerk of Court be directed to vacate all dates and close this case.
5
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
6
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
7
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
8
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
9
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
10
shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the
11
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
12
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th
13
Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
14
15
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated: May 27, 2015
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?