Yi Liu v. United States Postal Service (USPS) et al

Filing 16

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 10/30/15. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

YI LIU,

Case No. 15-cv-03734-JD
Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

9
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
(USPS), et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 15

12
13

On July 17, 2015, pro se plaintiff Yi Liu (dba) Technext020 filed a small claims complaint

14

against the “United States Postal Service (USPS) (Agent: Jason Kirrane).” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2. The

15

case was removed to this Court on August 17, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. On August 24, 2015, the United

16

States and the United States Postal Service filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No. 8.

17

Because Ms. Liu did not file any opposition to defendants’ motion (within the time permitted

18

under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or otherwise), the Court ordered Ms. Liu to show cause by October

19

26, 2015, why the motion to dismiss should not be granted and the case dismissed for failure to

20

prosecute.

21
22
23
24

The October 26 deadline has come and gone without a response. The Court therefore
dismisses the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides the Court with authority to dismiss a case

25

for failure to prosecute or to comply with any of its orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Ferdik v.

26

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a claim for

27

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following

28

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to

1

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of

2

less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.”

3

See Espinosa v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. C 10-04464 SBA, 2011 WL 334209, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

4

Jan. 31, 2011) (citing Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)).

5

Application of these factors here weighs in favor of dismissal. Liu has failed to file a

6

response to defendants’ motion to dismiss as required by the Local Rules and by court order,

7

despite having been warned that the case might be dismissed as a result for failure to prosecute.

8

See Dkt. No. 15.
With respect to the first factor, “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

9

litigation always favors dismissal.” Espinosa, 2011 WL 334209, at *1 (citing Yourish v. Cal.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). For the second factor, the Court must be able to

12

manage its docket “without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291

13

F.3d at 642; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (non-compliance with a court’s order diverts

14

“valuable time that [the court] could have devoted to other major and serious criminal and civil

15

cases on its docket.”). For the third factor, having filed nothing at all since the case was removed,

16

Liu has offered no explanation for her failure to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss or the

17

Court’s order to show cause. This weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. See Espinosa, 2011 WL

18

334209, at *2. With respect to the fourth factor, the Court already issued an Order to Show Cause,

19

which provided Liu with additional notice of the pending motion to dismiss, as well as additional

20

time to respond to the merits of that motion. See Dkt. No. 15. The Court’s issuance of the Order

21

to Show Cause satisfies the consideration of less drastic sanctions requirement. See Ferdik, 963

22

F.2d at 1262.
Although the fifth factor -- the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits --

23
24

might weigh against dismissal, on its own, the cumulative weight of the other factors overrides it.

25

See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (finding district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

26

case where three of the five factors weighed in favor of dismissal).

27

//

28

//
2

CONCLUSION

1
2

Because four of the five relevant factors weigh in favor of granting defendants’ unopposed

3

motion to dismiss, the Court grants that motion and dismisses this case in its entirety with

4

prejudice. The clerk will enter judgment and close the case.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2015

7
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

YI LIU,

Case No. 15-cv-03734-JD
Plaintiff,

5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
(USPS), et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on October 30, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Yi Liu
144 Crestwood Avenue
Apt 1
Daly City, CA 94015

19
20
21

Dated: October 30, 2015

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4