Hunt v. Ross Dress For Less LLC et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 04/17/2014. (eps)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
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
ROSS DRESS FOR LESS LLC, LC
ROSS STORES INC. AND OWNERS
)
MICHAEL SULLIVAN, JOHN CALL, )
AND ROSS DRESS FOR LESS IS A )
FOREIGN CORPORATION, CONVOY, )
SIMBERG, GANNON LAW FIRM AND )
)
ALL PARTIES,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
PATRICIA HUNT,

CIVIL 14-00081 LED-RLP

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
On March 13, 2014, this Court issued an order adopting
the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation that the
District Court Dismiss the Complaint with Leave to Amend and Deny
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees, filed
February 24, 2014 (“F&R”).

[Dkt. nos. 7, 8.]

Pursuant to the F&R, as adopted by this Court, pro se
Plaintiff Patricia Hunt’s (“Plaintiff”) amended complaint was due
“no later than thirty days from the district court’s adoption of”
the F&R.

[F&R at 5.]

Because thirty days after March 13, 2014

was Saturday, April 12, 2014, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was
due on Monday, April 14, 2014.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C)

(“if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the
period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not

a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday”).

Plaintiff, however,

failed to file an amended complaint, and has not requested an
extension of time to file her amended complaint.
In light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this
Court’s order and the F&R, and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to
correct the deficiencies identified in the F&R in a timely
manner, this Court has the discretion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint with prejudice.

See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191

F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff’s
failure to comply with a minute order setting forth the deadline
to file the amended complaint granted the district court the
discretion to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).1
After weighing the five dismissal factors set forth in Dreith v.
Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011),2 this Court
finds that the public interest in expeditious resolution of this

1

Rule 41(b) states, in pertinent part: “If the plaintiff
fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court
order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim
against it.”
2

The Ninth Circuit has
identified five factors that a district court must
consider before dismissing a case . . . : (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 other
party; (4) the public policy favoring the
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions.

Dreith, 648 F.3d at 788 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
2

litigation and this Court’s interest in managing the docket
strongly outweigh the policy favoring disposition of cases on the
merits.

Moreover, the defendants apparently have not yet been

served and will not be prejudiced by dismissal, and there are no
less drastic alternatives available at this time.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, which this Court previously
dismissed without prejudice, is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, April 17, 2014.

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

PATRICIA HUNT VS. ROSS DRESS FOR LESS LLC, ET AL; CIVIL 14-00081
LEK-RLP; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

3