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)

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