Clarendon National Insurance Company v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/17/2017 DISMISSING this action. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ORDERED to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Hunt, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:15-CV-01309 KJM KJN ORDER v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. 17 18 19 On May 5, 2017, the court determined this case had settled. ECF No. 46. The 20 court ordered the parties to file dispositional documents by June 19, 2017. Id. That deadline 21 passed, yet no dispositional documents were filed. On August 2, 2017, the court ordered plaintiff 22 to show cause within seven days why this case should not be dismissed. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff 23 never responded. Accordingly, and as explained below, the court now dismisses this case for 24 failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 25 Under Rule 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply 26 with a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Before doing so, the 27 court must weigh five factors including: “‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 28 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 1 1 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 2 drastic alternatives.’” Id. at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 3 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 4 The first two factors support dismissal here. This action has been pending for over 5 two years and has reached the stage, set by the court’s June 7, 2016 scheduling order, for trial 6 preparation. See ECF No. 28 (final pretrial conference set for October 20, 2017; trial set for 7 December 11, 2017). Plaintiff has not complied with court orders or otherwise taken any action 8 in nearly six months. See ECF Nos. 45-47. The third factor, prejudice to defendants, also 9 supports dismissal as defendants would be disadvantaged if the court allowed this action, which 10 plaintiff appears to have abandoned, to continue against them. Although the fourth factor, the 11 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, generally weighs against dismissal, the 12 factor is neutral here: the parties have purportedly settled and plaintiff has remained inattentive to 13 finalizing settlement. Finally, the fifth factor also favors dismissal, as the court has granted 14 plaintiff ample time to respond or otherwise finalize the purported settlement, but to no avail, 15 leaving the court with no suitable alternative to dismissal. 16 17 Having considered the five Ferdik factors, the court now DISMISSES this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 This resolves ECF No. 47. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to close this 20 case. 21 DATED: October 17, 2017. 22 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?