Stone v. Q4S Security Firm

Filing 23

ORDER Dismissing Case Without Prejudice re 1 2 .Plaintiff's Complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED. The dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as Plaintiff may file a new case to pursue the claims that survived the screening process in thi s case. See Order Granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint in Part, and Ordering Service of the Remaining Portion of Plaintiff's Complaint, filed 4/ 23/18 (dkt. no. 6). In other words, Plaintiff no longer has any remaining claims in this case.In light of the dismissal of the Complaint, Plaintiff's TRO Motion is HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT. This Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to close th e case on October 25, 2018, unless Plaintiff files a motion for reconsideration of this Order by October 22, 2018. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 10/4/2018. (cib, )COURTS CERTIFICATE of Service - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
NANETTE STONE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Q4S SECURITY FIRM,
)
)
)
Defendant,
_____________________________ )

CIVIL 18-00144 LEK-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On April 18, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Nanette Stone
(“Plaintiff”) filed, inter alia, her Complaint and a Petition for
Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and for Injunction Against
Harassment (“TRO Motion”).

[Dkt. nos. 1, 3.]

On September 5,

2018, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should
Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute (“OSC”).
no. 20.]

[Dkt.

The OSC directed Plaintiff to file a response by

October 3, 2018, explaining why the case should not be dismissed
without prejudice.

Plaintiff was cautioned that, if she failed

to file a response to the OSC, this case would be dismissed
without prejudice.

[OSC at 2.]

This Court also stated it would

take no action on the TRO Motion until after it addressed
Plaintiff’s response to the TRO.

[Id. at 3.]

Because Plaintiff has neither filed a response to the
OSC nor requested an extension of the October 3, 2018 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, Defendant G4S Secure Solutions USA Inc. – which was
incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Q4S Security Firm
(“Defendant”) – will not be prejudiced by the dismissal because
there have been limited filings in this case, and Defendant has

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

filed no dispositive motions.

Further, there are no less drastic

alternatives available at this time.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED.

The

dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as Plaintiff may file a
new case to pursue the claims that survived the screening process
in this case.

See Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application to

Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs,
Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in Part, and Ordering Service of
the Remaining Portion of Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed 4/23/18
(dkt. no. 6).

In other words, Plaintiff no longer has any

remaining claims in this case.
In light of the dismissal of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s
TRO Motion is HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT.

This Court DIRECTS the

Clerk’s Office to close the case on October 25, 2018, unless
Plaintiff files a motion for reconsideration of this Order by
October 22, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, October 4, 2018.

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

NANETTE STONE VS. Q4S SECURITY FIRM; CV 18-00144 LEK-KSC; ORDER
DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

4