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