Moore v. Walmart Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING 36 DEFENDANT WALMART INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTFOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Trina L. Thompson on 5/9/2024. (rfm, COURT USER) (Filed on 5/10/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SARAH MOORE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.
WALMART INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 23-cv-02293-TLT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
WALMART INC.’S MOTION
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINTFOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
ECF: 36

Defendant WALMART INC. (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Sarah
Moore’s Complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (the
“Motion”). The Motion came on for hearing via videoconference in this Court on May 9, 2024, at

14

11:00 a.m. Having considered the moving papers, any opposition papers, the reply papers, and

15

good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.

16

PRODECURAL HISTORY

17
18
19
20

The case was filed the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, on March 17,
2023, ECF 1-1, and removed to federal court on May 17, 2023. ECF 1. An initial case
management conference was scheduled for August 24, 2023. ECF 9. Plaintiff failed to file a joint
case management statement as required by Judge Thompson’s Civil Standing Orders and to attend
the initial case management conference. ECF 15–16. A further case management conference was

21

scheduled for September 21, 2023, and Plaintiff failed to upload a joint case management

22

statement pursuant to Judge Thompson’s Civil Standing Orders. ECF 18. The Court issued an

23

Order to Show Cause for the failure to upload a case management statement by September 18,

24
25

2023, for which Plaintiff did not reply.
Plaintiff attended the case management conference on September 21, 2023, and a
scheduling order was issued. ECF 19. A further case management conference was scheduled for

26

February 1, 2024. ECF 19–20. Plaintiff failed to upload a joint case management conference

27

statement pursuant to Judge Thompson’s Civil Standing Orders. ECF 25. Plaintiff failed to appear

28

at the further case management conference on February 1, 2024. ECF 27. The Court issued an

1

Order to Show Cause for failure to appear, including a warning that a failure to prosecute may
warrant case dismissal. ECF 28. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause.

2

A settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Westmore was scheduled for February 8,

3

2024, which Plaintiff did not attend. ECF 22. A further case management conference was

4

scheduled for April 2, 2024. Plaintiff failed to file a joint case management statement in advance

5

of the conference. ECF 34. Plaintiff also failed to attend the case management conference. The

6

Court issued an Order to Show Cause for failure to appear, including a warning that failure to

7
8

prosecute may result in case dismissal. ECF 34–35. Plaintiff failed to show cause by the Court
ordered deadline of May 2, 2024.
LEGAL STANDARD

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

A defendant may move to dismiss an action if plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or

10

comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Unless the Court’s Order says otherwise, a

11

dismissal under Rule 41(b) acts as an adjudication on the merits. Id. “[D]ismissal is a harsh

12

penalty and, therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

13
14
15

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).
A Court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to
prosecute, “(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

16

disposition of cases on their meris; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Id. at

17

1260–61.

18

DISCUSSION

19

During hearing on May 9, 2024, defendant outlined plaintiff’s chronic failure to appear

20

throughout the action and service, by mail, e-mail, electronic case filing, and/or Federal Express
of:

21

•

Notice of Removal (ECF 1)

22

•

Judge Thompson’s Civil Standing Orders (ECF 8)

23

•

Wal-Mart’s ADR Certification (ECF 11)

24

•

Wal-Mart’s Case Management Statement and Discovery Report (ECF 12)

25

•

Order Directing Plaintiff to File Case Management Statement (ECF 14)

26

•

Wal-Mart’s Case Management Statements (ECF 17, 24, 33, 37)

27

•

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (ECF 36)

28

Plaintiff concedes to receiving materials provided by Walmart.
2

1

Plaintiff asserts, however, that she did not have access to the Court’s electronic case filing
system, and, thus, was unaware any docket activity prior to May 2, 2024. Despite not accessing

2
3

St., Santa Rosa, California, 95404, the following:

4

•

Initial Case Management Scheduling Order (ECF 4)

5

•

Order Reassigning Case to Judge Thompson (ECF 7)

6

•

Order Directing Plaintiff to File Case Management Statement (ECF 13)

7

•

Tentative Case Management and Scheduling Order (ECF 16)

•

Order to Show Cause (ECF 18)

•

Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge for Settlement (ECF 20)

•

Case Management Scheduling Order (ECF 21)

•

Order to Show Cause (ECF 25)

•

Order Denying Wal-Mart’s Request to Postpone Case Management Conference

8
9
10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

the electronic filing system, Plaintiff was sent, via First Class Mail at the address 1600 Humboldt

12

(ECF 26)

13

•

Order to Show Cause (ECF 28)

14

•

Clerk’s Notice Setting Telephone Conference (ECF 30)

15

•

Settlement Conference Meet and Confer Order (ECF 32)

16

•

Order to Show Cause (ECF 35)

17
18
19

Despite sending these documents to Plaintiff’s residence, the only record of Plaintiff’s
participation on the docket was the Joint Report Regarding Status of Plaintiff’s Department of
Labor Complaint, where she was a signatory. ECF 23.
In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, the public’s interest in

20

expeditious resolution of litigation. The Court provided Plaintiff with every opportunity to

21

participate in the proceedings and was unsuccessful. The Court sought to manage it’s docket by

22

referring the Plaintiff to the Self Help Desk, appear via videoconferencing and to mail any

23

responses or documents to the Court . This was again to no avail an prevented the Court from
successfully managing the docket. The risk of prejudice to the defendants became apparent when

24
25

the Plaintiff failed to meet and confer, respond to discovery requests, or attend scheduled
settlement conference. Several case managements hearings along with Orders to Show Cause.

26

Plaintiff failed to respond, file a separate case management statement, or attend any of the

27

previously scheduled cases management conferences. She was forewarned in the Orders to Show

28

Cause that her failure to participate could result in dismissal. Public policy favors disposition of
3

1

cases on their meris; however, the Court sought all available and less drastic alternatives to no
avail. Consequently, the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

2
3
4
5

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant WALMART INC., and
to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2024

6
7
TRINA L. THOMPSON
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
4