Perez v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIKA PEREZ, Case No.: 19-CV-01626 W (KSC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. 20] 14 WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant Worldwide Flight Services’ motion to 18 dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). [Doc. 20.] The Court decides 19 the matters on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 20 For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. 21 Rule 41(b) provides: 22 If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. 23 Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this 24 subdivision (b) … operates as an adjudication on the merits. 25 A Rule 41(b) dismissal “must be supported by a showing of unreasonable delay.” 26 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). A district court must further 27 weigh: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 28 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 1 || policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits[,] and (5) the availability of less 2 || drastic sanctions.” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 3 || Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 4 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). Dismissal is appropriate where at least four factors 5 || support dismissal, or where three factors strongly support dismissal. See Frederik v. 6 || Bonzelet, 963 F. 2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992). 7 As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has consented to the dismissal of this case by 8 || failing to oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Judge Whelan Chambers Rule 3(d); 9 ||Civ. L.R. 7.1()(3)(c). In addition, the Rule 41(b) factors counsel in favor of dismissal. 10 On January 7, 2020, this Court granted Heng G. Shi’s motion to withdraw as 11 |}counsel for Plaintiff. [Doc. 18.] Following Mr. Shi’s withdrawal, Plaintiff has been 12 ||}unresponsive except to state that she had never heard of the case or Mr. Shi. (Chaib 13 || Decl. [Doc. 20-1] § 9.) 14 Plaintiff has caused unreasonable delay, and the public’s interest in expeditious 15 || resolution of litigation favors dismissal. See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423; Omstead, 594 16 || F.3d at 1084. There is no indication Plaintiff intends to participate further in this lawsuit, 17 effectively barring Defendant from conducting discovery, preparing a Rule 26(f) 18 || statement, or taking any meaningful action in this case. Dismissal without prejudice 19 || serves everyone’s interest here. 20 This action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: April 13, 2020 \ 2 25 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 6 United States District Judge 27 28