1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE MARTIN REYES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00568-JLT-CDB
12 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY COURT 14 ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY ORDERS AND LOCAL RULES COMPANY, 15 (Docs. 7, 10) Defendant. 16 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 17 18 Relevant Background 19 Plaintiffs Jose Martin Reyes and Paulina Reyes (“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, initiated 20 this action with the filing of a complaint against Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity 21 Company (“Defendant”) on January 30, 2025, in the Kern County Superior Court, Case No. 22 BCV-25-100333. (Doc. 1). Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 14, 2025. (See 23 id.). On May 21, 2025, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss and served the motion 24 upon Plaintiffs.1 (Doc. 7). Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition or statement of non- 25 opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 26
27 1 On May 22, 2025, the assigned district judge referred the pending motion to the undersigned for the preparation of findings and recommendations, vacated the motion hearing, 28 and noted that the matter will be decided on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. 8). 1 Accordingly, on June 16, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiffs to “show cause in 2 writing within 14 days of the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed 3 for their failure to comply with the Local Rules.” (Doc. 10 at 2) (emphasis in original). 4 Plaintiffs were admonished that Local Rule 230(c) required they file either an opposition or 5 statement of non-opposition to the Defendant’s pending motion. In the alternative to showing 6 cause for the avoidance of sanctions, Plaintiffs were afforded the opportunity to file an untimely 7 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss within that same 8 time. Id. Plaintiffs were forewarned that “[a]ny failure by Plaintiffs to respond to this Order 9 may result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to obey the 10 Local Rules and failure to prosecute.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). 11 Plaintiffs failed to file either a response to the Court’s show cause order or an opposition 12 or statement of non-opposition, and the time to do so has expired. For the reasons below, the 13 undersigned will recommend that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice. 14 Governing Legal Standards 15 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 16 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 17 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 18 the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket 19 and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal 20 of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may 21 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply 22 with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal 23 for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 24 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 25 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute 26 and to comply with local rules). 27 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 28 1 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 2 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 3 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 4 citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 5 must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 6 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 7 Discussion 8 Here, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules. Plaintiffs 9 have filed no response to the Court’s order to show cause nor an opposition or statement of non- 10 opposition, and the time to do so has passed. There are no other reasonable alternatives available 11 to address Plaintiffs’ failure to respond and otherwise obey this Court’s orders. Thus, the first 12 and second factors—the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its 13 docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 14 The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendant, also weighs fairly in favor of dismissal 15 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 16 action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). This matter cannot proceed 17 further without Plaintiffs’ participation to prosecute the case and respond to the pending motion 18 to dismiss filed on May 21, 2025. (Doc. 7). The presumption of injury holds given Plaintiffs’ 19 unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Thus, the third factor—a risk of prejudice to the 20 Defendant—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 21 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 22 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 23 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 24 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 25 F.3d at 1228. Plaintiffs have not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. 26 They have instead failed to comply with this Court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure, and the Local Rules, and are thus impeding the progress of this action. Therefore, the 28 1 favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 2 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 3 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 4 1262. Here, the Court’s order to show cause, requiring a response from Plaintiffs, cautioned: 5 “Any failure by Plaintiffs to respond to this Order may result in the recommendation that 6 this action be dismissed for a failure to obey the Local Rules and failure to prosecute.” 7 (Doc. 10 at 3) (emphasis in original). 8 Plaintiffs were adequately forewarned that the failure to timely respond to the show cause 9 order could result in terminating sanctions. Because Plaintiffs have failed to comply with this 10 Court’s orders and Local Rules, and in so doing is failing to prosecute their case, the undersigned 11 will recommend dismissal of this action. 12 Conclusion and Recommendation 13 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 14 1.
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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE MARTIN REYES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00568-JLT-CDB
12 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY COURT 14 ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY ORDERS AND LOCAL RULES COMPANY, 15 (Docs. 7, 10) Defendant. 16 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 17 18 Relevant Background 19 Plaintiffs Jose Martin Reyes and Paulina Reyes (“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, initiated 20 this action with the filing of a complaint against Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity 21 Company (“Defendant”) on January 30, 2025, in the Kern County Superior Court, Case No. 22 BCV-25-100333. (Doc. 1). Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 14, 2025. (See 23 id.). On May 21, 2025, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss and served the motion 24 upon Plaintiffs.1 (Doc. 7). Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition or statement of non- 25 opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 26
27 1 On May 22, 2025, the assigned district judge referred the pending motion to the undersigned for the preparation of findings and recommendations, vacated the motion hearing, 28 and noted that the matter will be decided on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. 8). 1 Accordingly, on June 16, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiffs to “show cause in 2 writing within 14 days of the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed 3 for their failure to comply with the Local Rules.” (Doc. 10 at 2) (emphasis in original). 4 Plaintiffs were admonished that Local Rule 230(c) required they file either an opposition or 5 statement of non-opposition to the Defendant’s pending motion. In the alternative to showing 6 cause for the avoidance of sanctions, Plaintiffs were afforded the opportunity to file an untimely 7 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss within that same 8 time. Id. Plaintiffs were forewarned that “[a]ny failure by Plaintiffs to respond to this Order 9 may result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to obey the 10 Local Rules and failure to prosecute.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). 11 Plaintiffs failed to file either a response to the Court’s show cause order or an opposition 12 or statement of non-opposition, and the time to do so has expired. For the reasons below, the 13 undersigned will recommend that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice. 14 Governing Legal Standards 15 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 16 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 17 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 18 the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket 19 and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal 20 of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may 21 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply 22 with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal 23 for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 24 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 25 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute 26 and to comply with local rules). 27 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 28 1 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 2 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 3 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 4 citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 5 must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 6 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 7 Discussion 8 Here, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules. Plaintiffs 9 have filed no response to the Court’s order to show cause nor an opposition or statement of non- 10 opposition, and the time to do so has passed. There are no other reasonable alternatives available 11 to address Plaintiffs’ failure to respond and otherwise obey this Court’s orders. Thus, the first 12 and second factors—the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its 13 docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 14 The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendant, also weighs fairly in favor of dismissal 15 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 16 action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). This matter cannot proceed 17 further without Plaintiffs’ participation to prosecute the case and respond to the pending motion 18 to dismiss filed on May 21, 2025. (Doc. 7). The presumption of injury holds given Plaintiffs’ 19 unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Thus, the third factor—a risk of prejudice to the 20 Defendant—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 21 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 22 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 23 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 24 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 25 F.3d at 1228. Plaintiffs have not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. 26 They have instead failed to comply with this Court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure, and the Local Rules, and are thus impeding the progress of this action. Therefore, the 28 1 favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 2 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 3 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 4 1262. Here, the Court’s order to show cause, requiring a response from Plaintiffs, cautioned: 5 “Any failure by Plaintiffs to respond to this Order may result in the recommendation that 6 this action be dismissed for a failure to obey the Local Rules and failure to prosecute.” 7 (Doc. 10 at 3) (emphasis in original). 8 Plaintiffs were adequately forewarned that the failure to timely respond to the show cause 9 order could result in terminating sanctions. Because Plaintiffs have failed to comply with this 10 Court’s orders and Local Rules, and in so doing is failing to prosecute their case, the undersigned 11 will recommend dismissal of this action. 12 Conclusion and Recommendation 13 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 14 1. The Court DISMISS this action without prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this 15 action and to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules. See Local Rules 110, 16 230(c); and 17 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed close this case. 18 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 19 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 20 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 21 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections 22 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 23 leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 24 Objections, but a party may refer to exhibits in the record by CM/ECF document and page 25 number. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be disregarded by the District 26 Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A 27 party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain 28 1 || rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 2 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 7, 2025 | hwrnrD Pr 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28