Thoma v. Finance Factors, Limited et al

Filing 25

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 8/22/2011. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JOHN PETER THOMA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FINANCE FACTORS, LTD., ET
)
AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 11-00316 LEK-RLP

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
On June 29, 2011, the Court entered an order dismissing
pro se Plaintiff John Peter Thoma’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint and
Emergency Request for Restraining Order under Admiralty Law,
filed May 16, 2011 (“Order”).

[Dkt. no 18.]

The Order granted

Plaintiff until July 12, 2011 to file an Amended Complaint.

The

Court subsequently granted Plaintiff until August 15, 2011 to
file his Amended Complaint in an August 1, 2011 entering order.
[Dkt. no. 22.]

The Court’s August 1, 2011 entering order also

cautioned Plaintiff that, if he did not file an Amended Complaint
by August 15, 2011, the Court would dismiss this case with
prejudice.
Plaintiff did not file an Amended Complaint by
August 15, 2011 as ordered by the Court.
On August 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Statement” [dkt.
no. 24,] purporting to “return” the Court’s August 1, 2011

entering order [dkt. no. 22].

The Statement indicates that

Plaintiff has returned the Court’s August 1, 2011 entering order,
“counteroffer as ‘DEFICIENT’.

Counter offer not accepted[.]”

The remainder of the Statement is unintelligible and does not
conform to any proper filing as required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this district court.

The

Court has instructed Plaintiff on several occasions that his pro
se status does not excuse him from complying with the procedural
or substantive rules of the Court.

See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same
rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1) provides, in
pertinent part:
On motion or on its own, the court may issue any
just orders, including those authorized by Rule
37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney:
. . . .
(C) fails to obey a scheduling or other
pretrial order.
Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) provides that the court may “dismiss[] the
action or proceeding in whole or in part[.]”

Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(A)(v).
Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s August 1, 2011
order.

After weighing the five dismissal factors set forth in

Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.

2

2000),1 the Court finds that the public interest in expeditious
resolution of this litigation and the Court’s interest in
managing the docket strongly outweigh the policy favoring
disposition of cases on the merits.

Moreover, the defendants

will not be prejudiced by dismissal, and there are no less
drastic alternatives available at this time.
In accordance with the foregoing, the case is HEREBY
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 22, 2011.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

JOHN PETER THOMA V. FINANCE FACTORS; CIVIL NO. 11-00316 LEK-RLP;
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

1

The Ninth Circuit has delineated five factors a district
court must weigh in determining whether to dismiss a case for
failure to comply with a court order: “1) the public interest;
2) the court’s need to manage the docket; 3) the risk of
prejudice to the defendant; 4) the public policy favoring
disposition of cases on their merits; and 5) the availability of
less drastic alternatives.” Bautista, 216 F.3d at 841 (citation
omitted).
3