Berthinia S. Williams v. Westgate Las Vegas Resort and Casino, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 8, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00249
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 BERTHINIA S. WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00249-MMD-MDC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WESTGATE LAS VEGAS RESORT AND 9 CASINO, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Berthinia S. Williams brings this action against Defendants 13 Westgate Las Vegas Resort and Casino, Keena Fisher, and Veronica Sevilla (collectively, 14 “Defendants”) alleging various claims arising from her employment at Westgate. (ECF 15 No. 20.) For the reasons discussed herein, the Court dismisses this action without 16 prejudice. 17 II. BACKGROUND 18 On November 26, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, 19 dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. 20 (ECF No. 34.) The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days, or until December 26, 2025, to file a 21 second amended complaint and cautioned that failure to timely file an amended complaint 22 would result in dismissal. (Id.) Plaintiff did not comply, and on February 26, 2026, she 23 filed a motion for an extension of time citing her “mental disability” and various reasons 24 including mold in her home. (ECF No. 35.) On March 18, 2026, the Court extended the 25 deadline to April 2, 2026 for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and again cautioned 26 Plaintiff that failure to comply “will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.” (ECF 27 No. 38.) That deadline expired and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, file an 28 extension, or otherwise respond. 2 18, 2026 order. (ECF No. 39.) On April 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a 45-day 3 extension and stating that she has not begun to draft a second amended complaint due 4 to personal reasons including “[b]eing away from [her] home for the past four months due 5 to mold infestation.” (ECF No. 41 at 2.) Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 6 43.) 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 9 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 10 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 11 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 12 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 13 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 14 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 15 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 16 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the public’s 17 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 18 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 19 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 20 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 21 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 22 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 23 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 24 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 25 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 26 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 27 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 28 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 2 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 3 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 4 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 5 does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th 6 Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that 7 “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s 8 order as satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 9 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). 10 Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 11 case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 12 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed until and 13 unless Plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter a third 14 order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 15 only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite resources. The circumstances 16 here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: Plaintiff recites similar reasons for 17 her repeated failure to comply with the Court’s order to file a second amended complaint. 18 Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So 19 the fifth factor favors dismissal. 20 Having thoroughly considered the dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh 21 in favor of dismissal. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several 24 cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 25 determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 26 issue before the Court. 27 28 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 2 || Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court's March 18, 3 || 2026 order (ECF No. 38). 4 It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 39) is denied as 5 |} moot. 6 Itis further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for second amend (ECF No. 41) is denied 7 || as moot. 8 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 9 || close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue her claims, she must file a complaint in a new 10 || case. 11 DATED THIS 8" Day of May 2026. 12 13 ALA 14 MIRANDAM.DU- ———<“‘“C:™C™~:CCS ‘5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28