Wood et al v. Panther et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Defendants Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Dkt. 71 ) is GRANTED. Woods claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with PREJUDICE. The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm)

Case 1:15-cv-00092-DCN Document 73 Filed 05/15/23 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
RENEE WOOD,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00092-DCN
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
PAUL PANTHER; MARK KUBINSKI;
BRENT REINKE; RANDY BLADES;
ALAN STEWART; JAMES DU TOIT;
and JOHN AND JANE DOES,
Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendants’ Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Prosecute, filed on December 23, 2022. Dkt. 71. Having reviewed the record, the Court
finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented. Thus, in the interest of
avoiding further delay, and because oral argument would not significantly aid its decisional
process, the Court will decide the Motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R.
7.1(d)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
II. BACKGROUND
This case has been ongoing since 2015. It originally involved two additional
plaintiffs and several other defendants. After closing the case in 2020, the Court issued an

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Case 1:15-cv-00092-DCN Document 73 Filed 05/15/23 Page 2 of 4

order reopening the case solely as to Renee Wood later that year. Dkt. 46. After Wood
proceeded with her Second Amended Complaint, several defendants moved to dismiss the
claims against them. Dkts. 53, 63. The Court granted the motions on March 4, 2021. Dkt.
70.
Since that time, besides the pending Motion to Dismiss, the docket has been idle. In
fact, December 4, 2020, was the last time Wood took any action on this case. Dkt. 65. After
the case had languished for more than two years, Defendants filed the instant Motion.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a defendant to move to dismiss the
action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her claims. Unless otherwise stated, a
dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b). Additionally, “[a]ny civil case in which no action of record has been taken by the
parties for a period of six (6) months may, after sufficient notice as determined by the
Court, be dismissed by the Court for lack of prosecution.” Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 41.1.
IV. ANALYSIS
Dismissing a case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) involves a five-factor
analysis: “(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 defendants; (4) the public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
alternatives.” Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir.
2019). A plaintiff's failure to respond to pleadings and the court’s inquiries constitutes

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Case 1:15-cv-00092-DCN Document 73 Filed 05/15/23 Page 3 of 4

abandonment of claims and warrants dismissal. J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Morfin, 2014
WL 12788190, at *2 (D. Idaho Feb. 7, 2014).
As to the first factor, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that “the public’s interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. California
Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Likewise, the second factor warrants
dismissal. The Court has a significant number of active cases on its docket that demand its
attention; resolving this case would ease the Court’s load. Third, the risk of prejudice to
Defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal. This case has been ongoing since 2015. The
specter of this litigation continues to hang over their heads, especially given Wood’s total
apathy. Though the fourth factor generally weighs in favor of disposing cases on their
merits, it “lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward
disposition on the merits but whose conduct impeded progress in that direction,” as is the
case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th
Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). And finally, with regard to the fifth factor, there is no less drastic
alternative available, especially given Wood’s utter failure to fulfill her responsibility to
move this case forward. For these reasons, the Court sees no reason to deviate from Rule
41(b)’s default effect—dismissal with prejudice.
V. ORDER
The Court HEREBY ORDERS:
1. Defendants’ Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Dkt. 71) is
GRANTED.
2. Wood’s claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Case 1:15-cv-00092-DCN Document 73 Filed 05/15/23 Page 4 of 4

3. The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

DATED: May 15, 2023
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4