Oyadomari v. Ewa Shear et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 1/5/2017. - This Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to close the case on January 26, 2017, unless Plaintiff files a motion for reconsider ation of this Order by January 23, 2017. (ecs, )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 1/6/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
WILLIAM K. OYADOMARI,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
EWA SHEAR and WORKSTAR
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL 16-00525 LEK-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
On September 23, 2016, pro se Plaintiff William K.
Oyadomari (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint and an Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(“Application”).

[Dkt. nos. 1, 2.]

On October 28, 2016, this

Court issued an order dismissing the Complaint, with leave to
amend, and reserving ruling on the Application, pending the
filing of an amended complaint and this Court’s screening of the
amended complaint (“10/28/16 Order”).

[Dkt. no. 4.]

The

10/28/16 Order gave Plaintiff until December 28, 2016 to file an
amended complaint that cured the defects identified in the
10/28/16 Order.

[10/28/16 Order at 9.]

Because Plaintiff has neither filed an amended
complaint nor requested an extension of the December 28, 2016
deadline, this Court has the discretion to dismiss the 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 gave 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 the expeditious resolution of this litigation
and this 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
because Plaintiff did not serve the Complaint, 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.
In light of the dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice,

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 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

Plaintiff’s Application is HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT.
This Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to close the case
on January 26, 2017, unless Plaintiff files a motion for
reconsideration of this Order by January 23, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, January 5, 2017.

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

WILLIAM K. OYADOMARI VS. EWA SHEAR, ET AL; CIVIL 16-00525 LEKKSC; ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

3