Julie Campbell v. LandCare Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/18/16. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JULIE CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-05843-JD
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE

v.
LANDCARE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 23

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff Julie Campbell filed a complaint in Alameda County Superior Court in October

14

2015, against LandCare Holdings, Inc. Dkt. No. 1-1. The right defendant appears to be LandCare

15

USA, LLC (“LandCare”), who although misnamed in the complaint contacted Campbell to initiate

16

early settlement discussions. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. During those discussions, defendant came to

17

understand plaintiff’s lawsuit sought damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum, and

18

removed the case to this Court in December 2015. Dkt. No. 1. On February 1, 2016, the Court

19

allowed plaintiff’s counsel to conditionally withdraw with Campbell’s written consent, and

20

directed Campbell “notify the Court within 30 days if she intends to seek other counsel or proceed

21

pro se.” Dkt. No. 14. Campbell did not respond within that time. On February 9, 2016, the Clerk

22

of the Court entered default against Campbell on LandCare’s cross-complaint. Dkt. No. 16. On

23

March 28, 2016, the Court ordered Campbell to show cause by April 8, 2016 why this case should

24

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and why she should not be sanctioned for failing to

25

appear at a case management conference on March 23, 2016. Dkt. No. 23. The Court also

26

directed Campbell to indicate whether she will be proceeding pro se or has engaged counsel. Id.

27
28

Campbell has not responded to these orders. Consequently, the Court dismisses the action
for failure to prosecute. No other sanctions are ordered.

1
2

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides the Court with authority to dismiss a case

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

31, 2011) (quoting Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Application of these factors here weighs in favor of dismissal. Campbell has failed to

12

respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, despite the Court’s warning that the case might be

13

dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Dkt. No. 23. For the first factor, “‘[t]he public’s interest in

14

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.’” Espinosa, 2011 WL 334209, at *1

15

(quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). For the second factor, the

16

Court must be able to manage its docket “without being subject to routine noncompliance of

17

litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (non-compliance with a

18

court’s order diverts “valuable time that [the court] could have devoted to other major and serious

19

criminal and civil cases on its docket.”) For the third factor, “‘a presumption of prejudice arises

20

from the plaintiff[’s] failure to prosecute.’” See Holland v. Farrow, No. 14-CV-01349-JST, 2015

21

WL 1738394, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d

22

393, 400 (9th Cir. 1998)). Plaintiff has done nothing at all to rebut that presumption, and so this

23

factor weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. For the fourth factor, the Court already issued an

24

Order to Show Cause, which provided Campbell with notice of her failure to appear at the case

25

management conference, and a warning that she was already in default on the cross-claims and

26

had also missed deadlines for serving initial disclosures and conferring on a joint case

27

management statement. See Dkt. No. 23. The Order to Show Cause satisfies the requirement that

28

the Court consider less drastic sanctions. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Although the fifth factor
2

1

on the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits might weigh against dismissal,

2

on its own, the cumulative weight of the other factors overrides it. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at

3

643 (finding district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing case where three of the five

4

factors weighed in favor of dismissal).
CONCLUSION

5
6
7
8
9

Because four of the five relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal, Court dismisses this
case in its entirety without prejudice. The clerk will enter judgment and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2016

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

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