Hupala v. Tianhai Central Air Conditioning Co Ltd

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 3

4 TATSIANA HUPALA, d/b/a “ADAM’S Case No. C22-1408 RSM 5 OFFER,” an individual, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 6 Plaintiff, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

7 v. 8 TIANHAI Central Air Conditioning Co., Ltd, 9 SALLY BEARD an individual, AMAZON.COM, INC., and DOES 1-4, 10

11 Defendants.

12 13 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On January 3, 2023, the Court stayed 14 this case and directed the parties to enter arbitration pursuant to the Business Solutions 15 Agreement in effect between them. Dkt. #38. The parties were directed to file joint status 16 reports every 90 days until the arbitration concluded. The Court has received several status 17 reports in the last year. Dkts. #39 through #42. Each report indicates that it was prepared by 18 19 Amazon only, with no input from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not initiated arbitration proceedings or 20 corresponded with Amazon. 21 On January 2, 2024, the Court issued an Order for Plaintiff to show cause why this case 22 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. #43. Plaintiff was given thirty days to 23 24 respond and has failed to file a timely response or to otherwise communicate with the Court. 25 Rule 41(b) allows district courts to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to 26 comply with rules or a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 27 626, 629-30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (a district court’s “power to [dismiss an 28 action for failure to prosecute] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of 1 2 pending cases and to avoid congestion” in the calendars of the district courts); Hells Canyon 3 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that “courts 4 may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte” for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with 5 the court’s orders or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 6 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal). 7 8 Rule 41(b) requires a plaintiff to prosecute their case with “reasonable diligence” if a plaintiff is 9 to avoid dismissal. Moore v. Telfon Commc’ns Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967 (9th Cir. 1978) 10 (quoting Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)). Where a court considers 11 dismissal as a remedy for failure to prosecute, the court is to consider: “(1) the public’s interest 12 13 in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 14 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 15 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 16 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 17 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders by failing to 18 19 initiate arbitration, failing to contribute to joint status reports, and failing to respond to the 20 Order to Show Cause. She has otherwise failed to prosecute her case in the last year. 21 Considering all of the above and the entire record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS 22 that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 23 DATED this 2nd day of February, 2024. 24 25 A 26 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28