Beazley Insurance Company v. Triton Distribution Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER That Case Be Reassigned to a District Judge, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint, filed by Beazley Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 9/6/2011. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2011)

1

** E-filed September 6, 2011 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

BEAZLEY INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC.,

12
Plaintiff,
13

No. C09-01327 HRL
ORDER THAT CASE BE
REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT
JUDGE

v.
14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

15

TRITON DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS,
INC., et al.,

16

Defendants.
____________________________________/

17
18

On July 24, 2009, upon Defendants’ default being entered and Plaintiff’s representation that

19

it intended to file a motion for default judgment, this Court vacated the then-scheduled case

20

management conference. Docket No. 17. Plaintiff never filed anything else, let alone a motion for

21

default judgment. So, the Court ordered that Plaintiff appear on August 30, 2011 to show cause why

22

the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Docket Nos. 18, 19. Plaintiff did not

23

appear. Docket No. 20.

24

A court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action sua sponte due to failure to prosecute.

25

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). When considering dismissal for lack of

26

prosecution, a district court must weigh the court’s need to manage its docket, the public interest in

27

expeditious resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants against the policy

28

1

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions. Ash v.

2

Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984).

3

Here, Plaintiff failed to appear after being ordered to do so. It was warned that failing to

4

appear or communicate with the Court would result in dismissal. It is unfair to Defendants to leave

5

the case pending and unresolved indefinitely. Plaintiff’s actions exhibit a disinterest in pursuing this

6

case and judicial resources cannot continue to be wasted by permitting it to linger. Plaintiff has left

7

the Court with no appropriate alternative but to recommend that the case be dismissed.

8
9

Because only Plaintiff has consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this Court ORDERS
the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a district court judge. The undersigned further

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned district court judge dismiss this action without prejudice

11

for the reasons set forth above.

12
13
14
15
16

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), any party may serve and file objections to
this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: Sept. 6, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2

1

C09-01327 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Jeffrey Stewart Whittington

3

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3