Alicia D Washington v. Equifax

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03314
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Alicia D Washington, No. CV-25-03314-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Equifax,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Defendant”) removed this case 16 from the San Marcos Justice Court of Maricopa County to this Court on September 10, 17 2025. (Doc. 1). A week later the Court set a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 18 November 17, 2025. (Doc. 8). The parties submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) Report in advance 19 of the Conference (Doc. 10), but Plaintiff did not appear. The Court issued an Order 20 requiring Plaintiff to show cause by November 24, 2025, why she did not appear, noting 21 that “Failure to timely show cause may result in the dismissal of this matter for failure 22 to prosecute.” (Doc. 12 at 2). Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order. 23 Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. 24 v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). A federal district 25 court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. 26 Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962). In appropriate circumstances, the 27 Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. 28 at 633. In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the || case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 2|| 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 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 5|| 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 6|| “The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus, the key factors are prejudice 8 || and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 10 The first two factors almost always favor dismissal in most cases, and they most 11 || certainly do here. Plaintiff's failure to show up to a Court appearance and failure to respond |} to the Court’s show cause Order both delays the resolution of litigation and hinders the 13} Court in managing its docket. The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because there is no prejudice to the Defendant if Plaintiff does not prosecute her case. The fourth 15 || will always weigh against dismissal and it does so here as well. If the case is dismissed, it will not be tried on its merits. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The less drastic alterative readily available to the Court is 18 || to allow for the case to be dismissed without prejudice. Otherwise, a dismissal for failure || to prosecute is normally an adjudication on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ Proc. 41(b). || Therefore, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to prosecute without prejudice. 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice under Federal 23 || Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to 24 || terminate this matter. 25 Dated this 1st day of December, 2025. / ' God _ □□□ □ 26 norable'Diang4. Huretewa United States District Judge 28

_2-