Marine Lumber Co. vs. Precision Moving & Storage, Inc.

Filing 181

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION re 1 - Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 4/9/2024. This Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to close this case on April 24, 2024, unless Marine Lumber files a timely motion for reconsideration of this Order. (eta)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MARINE LUMBER CO., AN OREGON
CORPORATION;

CIV. NO. 16-00365 LEK-WRP

Plaintiff,
vs.
PRECISION MOVING & STORAGE,
INC., A HAWAII CORPORATION; AND
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50,
Defendants.
ORDER LIFTING STAY AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
Plaintiff Marine Lumber Co. (“Marine Lumber”) filed
the Complaint in this case on June 30, 2016. [Dkt. no. 1.] On
January 22, 2018, this case was stayed and administratively
closed in light of Defendant Precision Moving & Storage, Inc.’s
(“Precision Moving”) initiation of a voluntary bankruptcy
petition. See Minutes - Amended EO: Court Order Staying and
Administratively Closing Case, filed 1/22/18 (dkt. no. 176).
This Court directed Precision Moving to “submit a letter to this
Court within seven days after the bankruptcy stay is lifted.”
[Id. at PageID.4660.]
It appears that Precision Moving’s bankruptcy case has
concluded. See In re Precision Moving & Storage, Inc., Bankr.
Case No. 17-01337, Final Decree, filed 9/5/23 (dkt. no. 91).

However, Precision Moving did not advise this Court of the
conclusion of the bankruptcy case, nor has Plaintiff Marine
Lumber Co. (“Marine Lumber”) requested that the instant case be
reopened and the stay lifted. On March 19, 2024, this Court
informed the parties that it was inclined to enter an order of
dismissal and to terminate the case based on lack of
prosecution. [Minute Order – EO: Court Order Informing the
Parties of the Court’s Inclination, filed 3/19/24 (dkt. no. 180)
(“3/19/24 EO”).] Neither Marine Lumber nor Precision Moving
filed a response to the 3/19/24 EO.
After weighing the five dismissal factors set forth in
Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011),1
this Court finds that the public interest in the expeditious
resolution of this litigation and this Court’s interest in
managing the docket strongly outweigh the policy favoring
disposition of Marine Lumber’s claims on the merits. This is

1

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

particularly true in light of the fact Marine Lumber has taken
no action in this case since Precision Moving’s bankruptcy case
concluded over six months ago. Moreover, Precision Moving will
not be prejudiced by the dismissal of the Complaint and the
termination of this case because Precision Moving did not assert
any counterclaims against Marine Lumber. See generally Answer to
the Complaint Filed June 30, 2016, filed 8/5/16 (dkt. no. 15).
Further, there are no less drastic alternatives available at
this time.
This Court therefore LIFTS the stay in this case and
DISMISSES the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of
prosecution. See, e.g., Carver v. Hawai`i 1st Cir. Judiciary
Judge(s) CASA Appointed Atty’s, Case No. 23-cv-00611-DKW-RT,
2024 WL 778147, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Feb. 26, 2024) (“Federal
courts have the authority to dismiss cases for failure to
prosecute or failure to comply with court orders.” (citing
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002))). This
Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to close this case on April 24,
2024, unless Marine Lumber files a timely motion for
reconsideration of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, April 9, 2024.

MARINE LUMBER CO. VS. PRECISION MOVING & STORAGE, INC.; CV 1600365 LEK-WRP; ORDER LIFTING STAY AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

4