James Bradley Haag v. Jeff Macomber

C.D. California

James Bradley Haag v. Jeff Macomber

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 2, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-05111·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

James Bradley Haag, No. 2:24-cv-05111-SB-E Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Jeff Macomber et al., Defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The deadline for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation passed on December 3, 2024, and no objections have been filed. The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge, as the five factors in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992),1 support dismissal for lack of prosecution. Only the fourth factor weighs against dismissal, as it always does. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006). The remaining factors support dismissal because: (1) Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint despite being given an opportunity to do so; (2) Plaintiff’s failure to take any action for over two months is an unreasonable delay that raises a presumption of prejudice, which he has not rebutted, In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452–53 (9th Cir. 1 A court must weigh: “(1) the public’s interest in 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 alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61 (cleaned up). 1994); and (3) less drastic sanctions are not available, particularly since Plaintiff was warned that failing to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal, Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1987); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Date: January 2, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

James Bradley Haag, No. 2:24-cv-05111-SB-E Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Jeff Macomber et al., Defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The deadline for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation passed on December 3, 2024, and no objections have been filed. The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge, as the five factors in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992),1 support dismissal for lack of prosecution. Only the fourth factor weighs against dismissal, as it always does. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006). The remaining factors support dismissal because: (1) Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint despite being given an opportunity to do so; (2) Plaintiff’s failure to take any action for over two months is an unreasonable delay that raises a presumption of prejudice, which he has not rebutted, In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452–53 (9th Cir. 1 A court must weigh: “(1) the public’s interest in 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 alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61 (cleaned up). 1994); and (3) less drastic sanctions are not available, particularly since Plaintiff was warned that failing to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal, Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1987); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Date: January 2, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge

James Bradley Haag v. Jeff Macomber, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

James Bradley Haag v. Jeff Macomber (James Bradley Haag v. Jeff Macomber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

In Re Phenylpropanolamine (Ppa) Products Liability Litigation, Shantell Allen, on Behalf of Allen, Vera v. Bayer Corporation, Leon Anderson, Jr. v. Bayer Corporation, Leslie Ackel v. Bayer Corporation, Bridgett Arrington v. Bayer Corporation, Calvin McGriggs v. Delaco Company, Betty Clinton v. Delaco Company, Donna Sasseen v. Ide Interstate Inc., Elizabeth Page v. Bayer Corporation, Marie Riley v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Keva K. Alford, on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Henry Dexter, and Eddie Bullock v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Bobby Holmes v. Bayer Corporation, Melody McDaniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Samantha Samuels v. Bayer Corporation

460 F.3d 1217 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Opinion

Related