1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANA KLINE, No. 2:19–cv–2387–MCE–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 MENTOR WORLDWIDE, LLC, et al., (ECF No. 43 ) 15 Defendants.
16 17 EMMA LEE NICHOLS, No. 2:19–cv–2391–MCE–KJN PS 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. (ECF No. 37 ) 20 MENTOR WORLDWIDE, LLC, et al., 21 Defendants. 22
23 24 These related product liability cases are based on a common complaint filed in California 25 state court before they were severed and then removed to this court as independent cases. On 26 March 29, 2021, in a consolidated order, the assigned District Judge granted defendants’ motions 27 to dismiss all claims by plaintiffs Kline and Nichols, with leave to amend. (No. 2:19-cv-2387, 28 ECF No. 39; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 34.) Both plaintiffs were originally represented by 1 counsel, but after briefing concluded on the motions to dismiss the court granted their attorneys 2 permission to withdraw. (No. 2:19-cv-2387, ECF No. 40; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 31.) 3 Because plaintiffs are now representing themselves, each action is referred to the undersigned for 4 all pretrial proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (See 5 No. 2:19-cv-2387, ECF No. 42; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 36.) 6 The court’s March 29, 2021 order of dismissal gave plaintiffs 20 days to file a First 7 Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies identified, and it cautioned that failure to timely 8 amend would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice and without further notice. 9 (No. 2:19-cv-2387, ECF No. 39 at 14; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 34 at 14.) That deadline 10 passed without receipt of an amended complaint or any other filings from plaintiffs. 11 On May 5, 2021 the undersigned issued a consolidated order for plaintiffs to show cause 12 within 14 days why their respective actions should not be dismissed with prejudice under Federal 13 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to continue prosecuting their cases. (No. 2:19-cv-2387, 14 ECF No. 43; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 37.) The undersigned warned that either plaintiff’s 15 failure to timely comply with the order by filing either a First Amended Complaint or a notice of 16 voluntary dismissal “will result in a recommendation that her action be dismissed with prejudice 17 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Id. at 2.) 18 Copies of the March 29th dismissal order and the May 5th order to show cause were 19 mailed to both plaintiffs at the addresses where their former counsel certified having served 20 copies of the earlier orders granting leave to withdraw. (See No. 2:19-cv-2387, ECF No. 40; 21 No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 35.) However, on May 20, 2021, the copies of those orders sent to 22 plaintiff Nichols were returned to the court as undeliverable. The second deadline provided in the 23 May 5th order to show cause is now passed, again without any response from either plaintiff. 24 Legal Standard 25 Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:
26 Any individual representing himself [] without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. 27 All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, 28 1 judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules. 2 See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 3 same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district 4 court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or fails 6 to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules. 7 See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua 8 sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 9 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (sua sponte dismissal under Rule 41(b) approved 10 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); 11 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s 12 local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”); 14 Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) 15 (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions 16 including dismissal or default). 17 A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 18 prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local 19 rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). These are: 20 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 21 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 22 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 23 Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002). 24 Analysis 25 Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal, because this case has already been 26 delayed by plaintiffs’ failures to take the steps necessary to move their cases forward after losing 27 counsel. The third factor also favors dismissal because the longer this case stagnates, the longer 28 defendants must wait to prepare their defense to any amended claims plaintiffs might assert. 1 With the passage of time, memories fade and evidence becomes stale. 2 The fifth factor also favors dismissal because the court already attempted less drastic 3 alternatives. Specifically, in granting the motions to dismiss, the court informed plaintiffs of the 4 complaint’s deficiencies and granted them leave to amend. More than a month later, the 5 undersigned gave plaintiffs another two weeks to provide their amended complaints, or otherwise 6 show cause why these cases should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In plaintiff 7 Nichols’s case, the court’s mail was returned as undeliverable, and plaintiff never informed the 8 court of any change of address. See L.R.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANA KLINE, No. 2:19–cv–2387–MCE–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 MENTOR WORLDWIDE, LLC, et al., (ECF No. 43 ) 15 Defendants.
16 17 EMMA LEE NICHOLS, No. 2:19–cv–2391–MCE–KJN PS 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. (ECF No. 37 ) 20 MENTOR WORLDWIDE, LLC, et al., 21 Defendants. 22
23 24 These related product liability cases are based on a common complaint filed in California 25 state court before they were severed and then removed to this court as independent cases. On 26 March 29, 2021, in a consolidated order, the assigned District Judge granted defendants’ motions 27 to dismiss all claims by plaintiffs Kline and Nichols, with leave to amend. (No. 2:19-cv-2387, 28 ECF No. 39; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 34.) Both plaintiffs were originally represented by 1 counsel, but after briefing concluded on the motions to dismiss the court granted their attorneys 2 permission to withdraw. (No. 2:19-cv-2387, ECF No. 40; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 31.) 3 Because plaintiffs are now representing themselves, each action is referred to the undersigned for 4 all pretrial proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (See 5 No. 2:19-cv-2387, ECF No. 42; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 36.) 6 The court’s March 29, 2021 order of dismissal gave plaintiffs 20 days to file a First 7 Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies identified, and it cautioned that failure to timely 8 amend would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice and without further notice. 9 (No. 2:19-cv-2387, ECF No. 39 at 14; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 34 at 14.) That deadline 10 passed without receipt of an amended complaint or any other filings from plaintiffs. 11 On May 5, 2021 the undersigned issued a consolidated order for plaintiffs to show cause 12 within 14 days why their respective actions should not be dismissed with prejudice under Federal 13 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to continue prosecuting their cases. (No. 2:19-cv-2387, 14 ECF No. 43; No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 37.) The undersigned warned that either plaintiff’s 15 failure to timely comply with the order by filing either a First Amended Complaint or a notice of 16 voluntary dismissal “will result in a recommendation that her action be dismissed with prejudice 17 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Id. at 2.) 18 Copies of the March 29th dismissal order and the May 5th order to show cause were 19 mailed to both plaintiffs at the addresses where their former counsel certified having served 20 copies of the earlier orders granting leave to withdraw. (See No. 2:19-cv-2387, ECF No. 40; 21 No. 2:19-cv-2391, ECF No. 35.) However, on May 20, 2021, the copies of those orders sent to 22 plaintiff Nichols were returned to the court as undeliverable. The second deadline provided in the 23 May 5th order to show cause is now passed, again without any response from either plaintiff. 24 Legal Standard 25 Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:
26 Any individual representing himself [] without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. 27 All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, 28 1 judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules. 2 See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 3 same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district 4 court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or fails 6 to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules. 7 See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua 8 sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 9 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (sua sponte dismissal under Rule 41(b) approved 10 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); 11 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s 12 local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”); 14 Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) 15 (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions 16 including dismissal or default). 17 A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 18 prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local 19 rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). These are: 20 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 21 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 22 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 23 Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002). 24 Analysis 25 Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal, because this case has already been 26 delayed by plaintiffs’ failures to take the steps necessary to move their cases forward after losing 27 counsel. The third factor also favors dismissal because the longer this case stagnates, the longer 28 defendants must wait to prepare their defense to any amended claims plaintiffs might assert. 1 With the passage of time, memories fade and evidence becomes stale. 2 The fifth factor also favors dismissal because the court already attempted less drastic 3 alternatives. Specifically, in granting the motions to dismiss, the court informed plaintiffs of the 4 complaint’s deficiencies and granted them leave to amend. More than a month later, the 5 undersigned gave plaintiffs another two weeks to provide their amended complaints, or otherwise 6 show cause why these cases should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In plaintiff 7 Nichols’s case, the court’s mail was returned as undeliverable, and plaintiff never informed the 8 court of any change of address. See L.R. 182(f) (imputing a duty on parties to notify the court 9 and parties of any change of address); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A 10 party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in [the 11 party’s] mailing address.”). Both plaintiffs here remain incommunicado since losing counsel and 12 having the original complaint dismissed. This leaves the court with little alternative but to 13 recommend dismissal. Given plaintiffs’ total silence despite the previous warnings, it is unlikely 14 that monetary sanctions could be effective.1 15 As to the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, that 16 factor is outweighed by the other Ferdik factors. Indeed, it is the plaintiffs’ own failure to 17 prosecute their cases and comply with the court’s orders that precludes a resolution on the merits. 18 Therefore, after carefully evaluating the Ferdik factors, the court concludes that dismissal is 19 appropriate. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 21 1. This action be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 41(b); and 23 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 24 /// 25
26 1 This is particularly so with respect to plaintiff Nichols, for whom the court lacks a valid address. See Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440-41 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 27 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address; noting that, without a current address, district court could not threaten litigant with lesser sanctions when such order of sanctions or to 28 show cause “would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail”). ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 3 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 6 || shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 7 || objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 8 | waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 9 || Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | Dated: May 25, 2021 Aectl Aharon 12 KENDALL J.NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 AW, ment.2387 & 2391 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28