Subramanian v. QAD Inc.

Filing 221

ORDER to show cause. Plaintiff must show cause in writing by 1/22/2009 why case should not be dismissed. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MANI SUBRAMANIAN, Plaintiff, v QAD INC, WILLIAM D CONNELL, AND DOES 1-50, Defendants. / No C 06-3050 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The court held a case management conference in the abovecaptioned matter on January 8, 2009. No appearance was entered for

plaintiff Mani Subramanian and no explanation was given for the absence. Defendants appeared. Under FRCP 41(b), the court can dismiss an action based on plaintiff's failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, and such a dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. In determining whether to dismiss an action, the court "(1) the public's interest in

considers the following factors:

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 sanctions." F2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir 1988). Carey v King, 856

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In this case, Subramanian failed to appear at a case management conference crucial to resolving ongoing discovery disputes between the parties. See Doc #180. Defendants allege

that Subramanian has failed to appear at scheduled depositions. Doc #213. Further, the court notes that Subramanian is not in

compliance with the court's order of November 20, 2008, Doc #193, ordering him to pay defendants' attorneys' fees. The court believes allowing this case to continue in light of Subramanian's failure to appear and failure to comply with court orders would greatly prejudice defendants, who have been forced to respond to Subramanian's many (often frivolous) motions. See generally Docs ##115,121,146,151,191,216. The court has

attempted the less drastic remedy of monetary sanctions to no avail. Doc #75 at 22. The court is thus satisfied that the only

remaining remedy before it is to dismiss the case with prejudice unless Subramanian can demonstrate good cause to do otherwise. Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS Subramanian to SHOW CAUSE in a writing not to exceed ten pages, on or before January 22, 2009, why the court should not dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. Defendants shall file their response, if any, not later FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS ORDER BY JANUARY

than January 29, 2009.

22, 2009 WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 2