Ghusar v. Park 'N Shade of Tucson, Inc.

Opinion

DAVID GHUSAR, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00398-DC-JDP Plaintiffs, v. ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY PARK ‘N SHADE OF TUCSON, INC., et WITH A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO al., PROSECUTE Defendants. On December 23, 2024, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff Sana Bhumbla1 to appear in person at a status conference scheduled for February 14, 2025, if she intended to proceed in this action pro se, or in the alternative, file a notice of dismissal of her claims brought in this action. (Doc. No. 35.) In that order, the court cautioned Plaintiff Bhumbla that her “failure to appear at the February 14, 2025 status conference may result in dismissal of her claims due to her failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s orders.” (Id. at 2–3.) The court held the status conference on February 14, 2025, and Plaintiff Bhumbla did not appear as required by the court’s December 23, 2024 order. Plaintiff Bhumbla also did not comply with that order by failing to file a notice of dismissal of her claims in lieu of appearing at

1 The only other plaintiff in this action—Plaintiff David Ghusar—reached a settlement with Defendants and stipulated to dismissal of his claims with prejudice. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff Ghusar was terminated from this action accordingly on February 18, 2025. (Doc. No. 38.) the conference. Thus, it appears Plaintiff Bhumbla no longer wishes to prosecute this action and has abandoned the litigation. In determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, courts consider the follow factors: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998). In addition, the Local Rules of this court provide that the failure of a party to comply with any order of the court “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. A party’s failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint), as amended (May 22, 1992). Here, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to Defendant all support the imposition of the sanction of dismissal here. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against dismissal. However, Plaintiff Bhumbla’s failure to prosecute this action makes disposition on the merits an impossibility. Finally, with respect to availability of less drastic sanctions, the court has considered alternative measures. The issuance of yet another order to show cause would be futile under the circumstances presented. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed due to Plaintiff Bhumbla’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s December 23, 2024 order. For the reasons set forth above, 1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff Bhumbla’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to obey a court order; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. □ Dated: _ February 19, 2025 EIU os Dena Coggins United States District Judge