Brian v. Windmill Ridge, LLC

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's orders. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/4/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8
9

RACHEL A. BRIAN,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00197-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
WINDMILL RIDGE, LLC,

10

Defendant.

11
12

On October 20, 2013, plaintiff was directed to file a complaint within 30 days (dkt.

13

no. 4). Because she had not done so by May 19, 2015, this Court issued an order

14

providing Plaintiff an additional fifteen (15) days to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. no.

15

6.) The fifteen-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended

16

complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.1

17

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the

18

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .

19

dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829,

20

831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

21

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

22

local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

23

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

24

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

25

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply

26

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

27
28

1

In fact, the Court’s last two orders were returned as undeliverable. It appears
that Plaintiff has failed to file her updated mailing address.

1

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply

2

with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal

3

for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

4

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

5

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several

6

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

7

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

8

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

9

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833

10

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

11

In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in

12

expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket,

13

weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in

14

favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

15

unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.

16

See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor ─ public

17

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ─ is greatly outweighed by the factors

18

in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure

19

to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

20

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;

21

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

22

complaint within fifteen (15) days expressly stated: “Failure to file an amended complaint

23

with thirty (30) days may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.” (Dkt. no. 6.)

24

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from her noncompliance

25

with the Court’s orders to file an amended complaint.

26

///

27

///

28

///

1
2
3

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s orders.
DATED THIS 4th day of June 2015.

4
5
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3