Jamal v. NAR Group, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER CONTINUING CMC TO APRIL 12, 2012. Signed by Judge Beeler on 3/6/2012. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
DEZETTIA JAMAL,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-02852 LB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

13
NAR GROUP, INC.,
14
15
16

Defendant.
_____________________________________/
Plaintiff Dezettia Jamal filed her complaint on June 10, 2011. Complaint, ECF No. 1.1

17

Defendant Nar Group, Inc. (“Nar”) was served via personal service with a copy of the complaint on

18

October 25, 2011. Proof of Service, ECF No. 11 at 2. Since that time, Nar has not made an

19

appearance and Jamal has taken no steps toward resolving this case. For the reasons below, the

20

court orders Jamal to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

21

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action.

22

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss a

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Pagtalunan v.

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 11-02852 LB
ORDER

1

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); Ghazali v. Moran,

2

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). These factors are a guide and “are ‘not a series of conditions

3

precedent before the judge can do anything.’ ” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability

4

Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158

5

F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support

6

dismissal, . . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El

7

Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263).

8

The last this court heard from Jamal was the unilateral case management conference statement

Jamal’s case in the intervening period. Jamal may either dismiss the complaint, file a request for

11

entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, or show good cause why the case should

12
For the Northern District of California

filed on January 5, 2012. CMC Statement, ECF No. 13. The court is unaware of any changes to

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

remain open. If Jamal does not either take affirmative steps to come to a final resolution, or explain

13

to the court why such steps would be premature, the court will dismiss the case. Accordingly, the

14

court ORDERS Jamal to show cause why this action should not be dismissed by the court for failure

15

to prosecute by March 27, 2012.

16
17
18
19

The case management conference set for Thursday, March 8, 2012 is CONTINUED to 10:30
a.m. on Thursday, April 12, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 11-02852 LB
ORDER

2