John Brosnan v. Gueorqui Gantchev, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01092
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 John Brosnan, Case No. 2:24-cv-01092-CDS-EJY

4 Plaintiff Order Dismissing and Closing Case

5 v.

6 Gueorqui Gantchev, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 John Brosnan initiated this lawsuit asserting diversity jurisdiction. Compl., ECF No. 7. 10 Because the amount in controversy did not exceed the $75,000 threshold, Brosnan was ordered 11 to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 12 Order, ECF No. 21. The order to show cause expressly cautioned Brosnan that failure to timely 13 or fully respond would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without 14 further notice. Id. at 4. The order required Brosnan to respond and show cause by no later than 15 December 8, 2025. Id. Brosnan did not file a response and the deadline to do so has passed. In 16 short, Brosnan failed to show cause. 17 I. Discussion 18 It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action 19 because of his failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. 20 Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In 21 determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court 22 orders, a district court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 23 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to 24 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 25 availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 26 (9th Cir. 1986); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61 (failure to comply with court orders). 1 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of dismissal since Brosnan has not filed a response to the order to show cause as directed. Although the court’s inherent power to 4|| control its docket includes the ability to issue sanctions of dismissal where appropriate, Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831, without jurisdiction, the district court must dismiss the case. See 6|| Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1988). The 7|| third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a 8|| presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson vy. Air W,, Inc. 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, the public policy 10|| favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 11}| dismissal discussed herein. Finally, because Brosnan failed to establish a basis for jurisdiction, 12|| no sanction lesser than dismissal is feasible. Federal courts “have an independent obligation to 13]| determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]” Arbaugh v. Ye~H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 14]| (2006) (cleaned up). This determination is an “inflexible” threshold requirement that must be 15|| made “without exception, for jurisdiction is power to declare the law and without jurisdiction 16|| the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 17] (1999) (cleaned up). Because the complaint does not adequately allege an amount in controversy 18|| to give rise to diversity jurisdiction, nor does it confer federal question jurisdiction, coupled with 19]| Brosnan’s failure to comply with the court’s order, this case is dismissed. IL. Conclusion 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the show cause order [ECF No. 21] is discharged, and 22|| Brosnan’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The 23]| Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to enter judgment dechingly and to close this case. 24 Dated: December 23, 2025 / /

46 ristina DvSilva Upited States District Judge