Christopher Britt/Priviley LLC v. Citadel LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 1, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02084
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Christopher Britt/Priviley LLC, No. CV-21-02084-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Citadel LLC,

13 Defendant. 14 15 On March 14, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff Christopher Britt, whose counsel 16 had just withdrawn, to “file with the Court an update addressing the overall status of the 17 case” by March 28, 2022. (Doc. 17.) The order further stated that “Plaintiff Priviley 18 LLC, to the extent it wishes to continue litigating this action, shall, by March 28, 2022, 19 retain new counsel and have its new counsel file a notice of appearance on the docket.” 20 (Id.) Plaintiffs were warned that “[f]ailure to comply may result in dismissal without 21 further notice.” (Id.) 22 As of today, Plaintiff Christopher Britt has not filed a status update, and no notice 23 of appearance of newly retained counsel for Plaintiff Priviley LLC has been filed. 24 It is well established that, under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure (as well as pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority), a district court has 26 authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. See 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (a 28 district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute); 1 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. United States Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2 2005) (court may dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with rules 3 of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (1992) 4 (holding that a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of 5 the court). 6 In determining whether Plaintiffs’ violation of a court order warrants dismissal of 7 the case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 8 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 9 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 10 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 11 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (citation omitted). “The first two of these factors favor 12 the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or 13 dismissal sanction. Thus, the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser 14 sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiffs’ 16 failure to respond to the Court’s order (Doc. 17) prevents the case from proceeding in the 17 foreseeable future. Indeed, Priviley LLC cannot litigate in federal court without counsel. 18 The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court 19 to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Given Plaintiffs’ failure to 20 respond to the order, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. 21 The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 22 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to comply with court orders operates as an 23 adjudication upon the merits “[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise.” Here, the 24 Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The Court will 25 therefore dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal 26 Rules of Civil Procedure. 27 Accordingly, 28 … 1 IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall || enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 3 Dated this 31st day of March, 2022. 4 5 Lom ee” 6 f t _ Dominic W. Lanza 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-