1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN J. CHAKMAKIAN, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01441-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE 14 EDMOND C. CHAKMAKIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 22, 2025, Plaintiffs Steven J. Chakmakian and Anne Chakmakian filed a 18 Complaint against Defendants Edmond C. Chakmakian and Lori Ann Cuiffo and paid the 19 filing fee.1 Compl. (ECF No. 1). On the same day, Plaintiffs were provided a summons 20 and initial scheduling order by the Clerk of Court. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) The initial scheduling 21 order stated: 22 Plaintiff shall complete service of process on all Defendants named in the complaint within 90 days from the date of this 23 order. Plaintiff shall provide each Defendant with a copy of (i) the summons; (ii) the complaint; (iii) this order; and (iv) the 24 Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment information. 25 a. Within 10 days after service of process on a given 26 Defendant, Plaintiff(s) shall file with the Clerk a certificate 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 stating that the Defendant was served under Rule 4. 2 b. The Court cautions Plaintiff(s) that this case may be dismissed if service of process is not accomplished within 90 3 days. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 4 (ECF No. 3 at 2 ¶ 2.) 5 On November 17, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ordering 6 Plaintiffs to file a response why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for 7 Plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve Defendants. 11/17/2025 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 8 4) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110). To date, Plaintiffs have not responded 9 to the Court’s orders and have not filed a proof of service reflecting that Plaintiffs have 10 attempted proper service on Defendants pursuant to Rule 4. See Docket. Accordingly, 11 the Court recommends dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 12 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 13 A. Involuntary Dismissals under Rule 41(b) 14 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a court may dismiss an action for 15 failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 16 court’s local rules, or any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Ghazali v. 17 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (approving dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a party’s 18 failure to follow the district court’s local rules). This court’s Local Rules are in accord. 19 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 20 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 21 and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the 22 Court.”); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply 23 with the federal rules, local rules, or other applicable law may support dismissal of that 24 party’s action). The court may act on its own accord in exercising this authority. Hells 25 Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 26 (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)). 27 The Ninth Circuit has found the following factors relevant in determining whether a 28 case should be dismissed under Rule 41(b): 1 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant(s); 3 (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 4 5 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019). 6 B. Dismissals under Rule 4(m) for Failure to Serve 7 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that: 8 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the 9 plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 10 specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an 11 appropriate period. 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Related factors exist for dismissals for insufficient service of 13 process: “(a) the party to be served received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the 14 defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his 15 complaint were dismissed.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 16 Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Applying the factors for involuntary dismissal, the Court finds this action should be 19 dismissed. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 890. The first two factors weigh in 20 favor of dismissal because the public has a strong interest in expeditious resolution of 21 litigation, and Plaintiffs have failed to take the steps necessary to move this case 22 forward. In addition, this district court in particular has a strong need and interest in 23 managing its docket given the extremely high caseload in the Eastern District of 24 California. While the risk of prejudice to Defendants is somewhat minimal, there is some 25 prejudice given the impact on resources of stale litigation. 26 As to the fourth factor, the Court has already tried less drastic alternatives. 27 Specifically, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on November 17, 2025, which 28 ordered Plaintiffs to inform the Court why this case should not be dismissed without 1 prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve Defendants. 11/17/2025 Order to Show 2 Cause. Plaintiffs were issued summons in this action on May 22, 2025 and have had 3 ample opportunity to serve Defendants. To date, Plaintiffs have not advised the Court 4 whether Defendants were properly served as required by Rule 4, nor have they 5 requested additional time to do so. Accordingly, the Court has little alternative but to 6 recommend dismissal. 7 Finally, as to the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, that 8 factor is outweighed here. Indeed, it is Plaintiffs’ own failure to prosecute the case and 9 comply with the rules that precludes a resolution on the merits. 10 The factors for dismissals for insufficient service of process also warrant 11 dismissal. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512. Defendants have not been served and 12 have not participated in this action.
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 STEVEN J. CHAKMAKIAN, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01441-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE 14 EDMOND C. CHAKMAKIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 22, 2025, Plaintiffs Steven J. Chakmakian and Anne Chakmakian filed a 18 Complaint against Defendants Edmond C. Chakmakian and Lori Ann Cuiffo and paid the 19 filing fee.1 Compl. (ECF No. 1). On the same day, Plaintiffs were provided a summons 20 and initial scheduling order by the Clerk of Court. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) The initial scheduling 21 order stated: 22 Plaintiff shall complete service of process on all Defendants named in the complaint within 90 days from the date of this 23 order. Plaintiff shall provide each Defendant with a copy of (i) the summons; (ii) the complaint; (iii) this order; and (iv) the 24 Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment information. 25 a. Within 10 days after service of process on a given 26 Defendant, Plaintiff(s) shall file with the Clerk a certificate 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 stating that the Defendant was served under Rule 4. 2 b. The Court cautions Plaintiff(s) that this case may be dismissed if service of process is not accomplished within 90 3 days. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 4 (ECF No. 3 at 2 ¶ 2.) 5 On November 17, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ordering 6 Plaintiffs to file a response why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for 7 Plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve Defendants. 11/17/2025 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 8 4) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110). To date, Plaintiffs have not responded 9 to the Court’s orders and have not filed a proof of service reflecting that Plaintiffs have 10 attempted proper service on Defendants pursuant to Rule 4. See Docket. Accordingly, 11 the Court recommends dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 12 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 13 A. Involuntary Dismissals under Rule 41(b) 14 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a court may dismiss an action for 15 failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 16 court’s local rules, or any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Ghazali v. 17 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (approving dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a party’s 18 failure to follow the district court’s local rules). This court’s Local Rules are in accord. 19 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 20 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 21 and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the 22 Court.”); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply 23 with the federal rules, local rules, or other applicable law may support dismissal of that 24 party’s action). The court may act on its own accord in exercising this authority. Hells 25 Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 26 (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)). 27 The Ninth Circuit has found the following factors relevant in determining whether a 28 case should be dismissed under Rule 41(b): 1 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant(s); 3 (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 4 5 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019). 6 B. Dismissals under Rule 4(m) for Failure to Serve 7 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that: 8 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the 9 plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 10 specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an 11 appropriate period. 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Related factors exist for dismissals for insufficient service of 13 process: “(a) the party to be served received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the 14 defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his 15 complaint were dismissed.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 16 Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Applying the factors for involuntary dismissal, the Court finds this action should be 19 dismissed. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 890. The first two factors weigh in 20 favor of dismissal because the public has a strong interest in expeditious resolution of 21 litigation, and Plaintiffs have failed to take the steps necessary to move this case 22 forward. In addition, this district court in particular has a strong need and interest in 23 managing its docket given the extremely high caseload in the Eastern District of 24 California. While the risk of prejudice to Defendants is somewhat minimal, there is some 25 prejudice given the impact on resources of stale litigation. 26 As to the fourth factor, the Court has already tried less drastic alternatives. 27 Specifically, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on November 17, 2025, which 28 ordered Plaintiffs to inform the Court why this case should not be dismissed without 1 prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve Defendants. 11/17/2025 Order to Show 2 Cause. Plaintiffs were issued summons in this action on May 22, 2025 and have had 3 ample opportunity to serve Defendants. To date, Plaintiffs have not advised the Court 4 whether Defendants were properly served as required by Rule 4, nor have they 5 requested additional time to do so. Accordingly, the Court has little alternative but to 6 recommend dismissal. 7 Finally, as to the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, that 8 factor is outweighed here. Indeed, it is Plaintiffs’ own failure to prosecute the case and 9 comply with the rules that precludes a resolution on the merits. 10 The factors for dismissals for insufficient service of process also warrant 11 dismissal. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512. Defendants have not been served and 12 have not participated in this action. While the risk of prejudice to Defendants is 13 somewhat minimal as discussed above, Plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice from 14 dismissal, as it is Plaintiffs’ lack of action in their own case that is prompting dismissal. 15 Therefore, after careful consideration, the Court concludes dismissal for failure to 16 prosecute is appropriate. See Hells Canyon, 403 F.3d at 689 (approving court’s sua 17 sponte dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s orders); see also, e.g., Rowell v. Ewing 19 Bros. Towing Co., 471 Fed. Appx. 597, 599 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The district court did not 20 abuse its discretion in dismissing [plaintiff’s] claims against [defendant] for failure to 21 serve, because [plaintiff] did not show good cause for why he did not take steps to 22 correct deficiencies in service once [defendant] notified him that it had not been properly 23 served."). 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 26 1. Plaintiffs’ action be DISMISSED; and 27 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 1 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 2 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 3 || objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should be 4 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply 5 || to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 days 6 | after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 7 || waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 8 | (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 | Dated: January 13, 2026 C iy S \U 11 CHI SOO KIM 42 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 4, chak1441.25 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28