Ogunmayin v. Alameda County Employees Retirment Association

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT by Judge William Alsup [granting 10 Motion to Dismiss; granting 18 Motion for Leave to File]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BEN OGUNMAYIN,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 12-06240 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
AND DENYING MOTION
TO DISMISS AS MOOT

ALAMEDA COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

In this employment dispute, plaintiff has failed to respond to defendant’s motion to

19

dismiss and an order to show cause. Although plaintiff’s counsel was recently warned that if he

20

failed to respond, the action might be dismissed for failure to prosecute, counsel has chosen not

21

to take heed of this warning. Accordingly, the present action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT

22

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.

23

STATEMENT

24

Plaintiff Ben Ogunmayin, an African-American born in Nigeria, was employed by

25

defendant Alameda County Employees Retirement Association as a retirement accountant.

26

Plaintiff was terminated four months after being hired, while he was a probationary employee.

27

His complaint alleges that during the course of his employment his supervisors discriminated

28

1

against him because of his race and accent, and that he was subjected to a hostile work

2

environment.

3

In December 2012, nine months after his termination, plaintiff filed the present action

4

alleging claims for misrepresentation, defamation, negligent investigation, racial discrimination

5

in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, violation of Skelly rights, and four claims for breach of contract.

6

It was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. In March 2013, Judge James

7

issued an order vacating a scheduled case management conference because there was no

8

indication that defendant had been served (Dkt. No. 3). Judge James also ordered plaintiff to file

9

a status report by March 25 (ibid.). The action was reassigned to the undersigned judge prior to
the March 25 deadline. Plaintiff did not file any status report.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

On the last day to file a joint initial case management statement, defendant filed its

12

separate case management statement (Dkt. No. 12). Defendant’s counsel also submitted a

13

sworn affidavit stating that she had a phone conversation with plaintiff’s counsel, she sent

14

several emails and left a voicemail message to prepare the joint case management statement.

15

Plaintiff’s counsel had replied to one of the emails, but had failed to provide plaintiff’s portion of

16

the statement (Dkt. No. 13). Plaintiff has yet to submit his separate case management statement.

17

In March 2013, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. When plaintiff’s deadline to submit

18

an opposition passed without a response, the Court issued an order to show cause requiring

19

plaintiff to respond by April 22 (Dkt. No. 16). The order further stated that plaintiff was on

20

notice that failure to timely file a response could result in defendant’s motion to dismiss being

21

granted or the action being dismissed for failure to prosecute (ibid.). On April 22, the last day

22

of the deadline, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice (Dkt.

23

No. 17). On that same day, however, plaintiff withdrew the motion, indicating that it had been

24

filed on the docket in error (ibid.). No further filing was made by plaintiff. One week after

25
26
27
28
2

1

plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the order to show cause passed, defendant filed a request to

2

dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute (Dkt. No. 18).*

3

On May 2, 2013, the case management conference and hearing on defendant’s motion to

4

dismiss took place. Defendant’s counsel appeared. Plaintiff’s counsel, however, did not appear

5

even after the undersigned judge waited one-and-a-half hours to preside over the motion in case

6

plaintiff’s counsel was running late.
ANALYSIS

7
8

As noted above, plaintiff (represented by counsel) was ordered to show cause and warned

for failure to prosecute, for failure to comply with a court order, or for failure to comply with the

11
For the Northern District of California

that if he did not, the present action might be dismissed. A district court may dismiss an action

10

United States District Court

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962).

12

Our court of appeals has articulated a five-factor test to determine whether dismissal is

13

warranted: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to

14

manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the availability of less drastic

15

sanctions, and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Thompson v.

16

Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). While a dismissal for failure to

17

prosecute is generally with prejudice, a district court may also opt for the less drastic remedy of

18

dismissal without prejudice. See Rule 41(b); Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37,

19

42–43 (2d Cir. 1982).

20

Plaintiff has failed to actively prosecute his claims. First, plaintiff failed to comply with

21

Judge James’s order to file a status report. Second, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16–9, counsel

22

must file a joint case management statement unless otherwise ordered or unless a party is not

23

represented by counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to cooperate with defendant’s counsel in

24

preparing a joint statement and has yet to file his separate case management statement.

25

Third, plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion

26

to dismiss. Fourth, after the Court issued an order to show cause, plaintiff filed a request for

27
28

* Defendant filed a request for leave to file an opposition brief to plaintiff’s erred filing discussing
why this case should be dismissed with prejudice. Defendant’s request to file the brief is GRANTED and the
arguments therein were considered for this order.

3

1

voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but then withdrew the filing as an error. Plaintiff has yet

2

to comply with the order to show cause. Plaintiff is obviously well aware of defendant’s pending

3

motion to dismiss, of the Court’s order to show cause and his obligations to respond to the same.

4

And fifth, plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the May 2 hearing.

factor favors dismissal. The public has an overriding interest in securing “the just, speedy, and

7

inexpensive determination of every action.” Rule 1. Delay in reaching the merits of a case,

8

either by way of settlement or adjudication, is costly in both time and money for the courts.

9

In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006).

10

By failing to cooperate with defendant’s counsel, failing to respond to defendant’s motion to

11
For the Northern District of California

In weighing the factors articulated by our court of appeals, this order finds that the first

6

United States District Court

5

dismiss, failing to show cause, and failing to appear at the May 2 hearing, plaintiff has delayed in

12

moving the litigation forward to reach the merits of the case. The May 2 hearing was scheduled

13

to discuss the merits of the claims through the motion to dismiss, not to anticipate on whether

14

plaintiff’s counsel would be appearing.

15

The second and third factors also weigh in favor of dismissal. The Court’s need to

16

manage its docket would not be served by allowing plaintiff to delay the resolution of this action.

17

Plaintiff has already failed to meet deadlines, follow court orders, and appear in court

18

proceedings. Plaintiff’s delay has also impaired defendant’s ability to proceed with the pending

19

motion to dismiss and reach the merits of the claims alleged. See Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

20

833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, both the Court and defendant are wasting time

21

and resources on an action that, even at its early stage, has been going nowhere fast.

22

The fourth factor also favors dismissal. “Warning a plaintiff that failure to obey a court

23

order will result in dismissal can suffice to meet [this] requirement.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 132.

24

The Court’s order to show cause warned plaintiff that failure to timely file a written response

25

could result in defendant’s motion to dismiss being granted or the action being dismissed for

26

failure to prosecute. Moreover, the instant dismissal without prejudice is a less drastic sanction

27

than dismissal with prejudice that is typical for failure to prosecute.

28
4

1

The fifth factor weighs against dismissal. However, a case that is stalled by

2

a party’s failure to meet deadlines cannot move forward to the merits of the claims.

3

In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d at 1228. This factor “lends

4

little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits

5

but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” Ibid. As such, this factor is outweighed

6

by the factors favoring dismissal.

7
8
9

For the foregoing reasons, the action is hereby DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
under Rule 41(b). This dismissal is without prejudice. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED
AS MOOT.

The Clerk SHALL CLOSE THE FILE.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CONCLUSION

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: May 2, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5