Sanchez v. Fridel LLC et al

Filing 66

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 3/29/2021. (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION

KRISSY SANCHEZ,

Cause No. CV 18-91-BLG-SPW

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

NEIL FRIEDEL,
Defendant.
Following Plaintiff Sanchez’s failure to respond to an Order issued on
February 11, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan ordered
Sanchez to show cause why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice.
Sanchez failed to respond.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the Court to dismiss an
action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute” the action. The Court may dismiss a
case on its own motion without awaiting a defense motion. See, e.g., Link v.
Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v.
United States Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005).
In considering dismissal, a court must weigh five factors: (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 or respondents; (4) the
1

availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring
disposition of cases on their merits. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642
(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992));
see also Tillman v. Tillman, 825 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying
Pagtalunan).
The first factor favors dismissal, and the fifth counsels against it. See
Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1990); Pagtalunan,
291 F.3d at 643 (citing Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir.
1998)). No special considerations suggest these factors should be viewed
differently in this case. The Court will consider factors two, three, and four.
Docket Management. Defendants prepared and filed a properly supported
motion for summary judgment on November 22, 2019 (Docs. 41–44). Judge
Cavan entered Findings and Recommendation on July 22, 2020 (Doc. 56). Months
later, on October 5, 2020, Sanchez submitted a nonsensical document purporting to
“object” to summary judgment (Doc. 58). On February 9, 2021, the Court adopted
Judge Cavan’s recommendation, granting Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment in part and denying it in part (Doc. 60). Judge Cavan then required each
party to submit a brief statement proposing a schedule for disposition of the
remaining claim. Defendant Friedel responded, but Sanchez did not. Other
litigants attempt in good faith to comply with court orders. This case takes time
2

away from those cases, and an action cannot proceed without a plaintiff. The
second factor, concerning docket management, supports dismissal. See
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990).
Prejudice. Sanchez’s abandonment frustrates Defendant Friedel’s ability to
vindicate himself at trial. The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. See
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d
128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987)).
Alternatives. No viable alternatives to dismissal appear. The Court has
already provided Sanchez with two opportunities to rejoin the action. She has
failed to respond. This factor weights in favor of dismissal.
Courts exist to resolve disputes on the merits. Both the Court and
Defendants have invested significant time and resources in this matter. Now,
however, Sanchez has essentially abandoned the action. The balance of the
Pagtalunan factors support dismissal.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to
prosecute. The clerk shall enter, by separate document, a judgment of dismissal
for failure to prosecute.
DATED this 29th day of March, 2021.

SUSAN P. WATTERS
United States District Judge
3