Abelardo Ramirez v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 23, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00736
StatusUnknown

This text of Abelardo Ramirez v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al. (Abelardo Ramirez v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abelardo Ramirez v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Abelardo Ramirez, No. CV-25-00736-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The case management order required the parties file a notice of readiness for trial 16 no later than December 8, 2025. (Doc. 10.) The parties did not file that notice and on 17 December 10, 2025, the court ordered the parties to file their notice no later than December 18 17, 2025. (Doc. 15.) Again the parties did not file a notice or any other document. The 19 record shows neither party is willing to comply with court orders or otherwise prosecute 20 this case. 21 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution,” the court must 22 consider “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 23 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 24 favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic 25 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (simplified). Here, the first 26 and second factors support dismissal. The court has no information on the third factor 27 regarding possible prejudice to the defendant because defendant has also refused to comply 28 with court orders. On the fourth factor, it would be preferable to resolve this case on its 1 || merits, but the parties’ refusal to respond to court orders makes that impossible. On the 2|| fifth factor, the only “less drastic sanction[]” available is dismissal without prejudice. || Given the limited information available and considering the various factors, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 5 IT IS ORDERED this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk 6 || of Court shall enter judgment and close this case. 7 Dated this 23rd day of December, 2025. 8

10 AA AOR PW OC Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 1] United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gregory Carey v. John E. King
856 F.2d 1439 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Abelardo Ramirez v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abelardo-ramirez-v-farm-bureau-property-casualty-insurance-company-et-azd-2025.