Weiss v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00493
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 MARIA WEISS, 6 Case No. 3:23-CV-00493-ART-CSD Plaintiff, 7 vs. ORDER DISMISSING FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION 8 CITIBANK, N.A.,

9 Defendant. 10 Before the Court is Defendant Citibank’s motion to dismiss this action for 11 lack of prosecution (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff commenced this action in October 12 2023, against Citibank as well as against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 13 and Equifax Information Services, LLC. (ECF No. 1.) On December 6, 2023, the 14 Court granted the parties’ stipulation to arbitrate claims against Citibank and 15 stay said proceedings. (ECF No. 24.) Subsequently, Plaintiff stipulated to dismiss 16 claims against Experian and Equifax with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 33, 35.) Citibank 17 is the only Defendant remaining in this action. 18 Citibank now moves the Court to dismiss this action for lack of prosecution 19 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Citibank argues that Plaintiff has 20 failed to demand arbitration, and that it has continuously reached out to Ms. 21 Weiss’s counsel and never received a response. Plaintiff did not file a response to 22 Defendant’s motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2025, the Court issued an Order to 23 Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 24 dismissed for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff failed to respond to this 25 Order by the set deadline. 26 When considering dismissal for failure to prosecute, courts must consider 27 the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 28 1 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to 2 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) 3 the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. 4 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 5 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). “District judges are best situated to decide when 6 delay in a particular case interferes with docket management and the public 7 interest.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). 8 The first three factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. As of the date of 9 this order, the last action Plaintiff took on the docket in this case was filing a 10 notice of change of address on January 6, 2025. (ECF No. 37.) Since then, Plaintiff 11 has not responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40), filed on March 12 28, 2025, nor to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 45), filed on July 10, 13 2025. This is unquestionably an unreasonable delay which prejudices 14 Defendants as a matter of law. The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution 15 of litigation is impeded by Plaintiff's failure to continue participating in this 16 lawsuit, and the Court’s need to manage its docket is thwarted by Plaintiff's 17 failure to prosecute her action. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th 18 Cir. 2002) (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being 19 subject to the routine noncompliance of litigants.”) 20 Regarding the last two factors, while there is a public policy favoring 21 disposition of cases on their merits which weighs in favor of Plaintiff, this is not 22 outweighed by the other factors that compel dismissal. The absence of any 23 response from Plaintiff to Defendant’s motion to dismiss for four months, as well 24 as Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause leaves the 25 Court with no sanction short of dismissal. 26 It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of 27 prosecution (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 28 Citibank, N.A., are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 41(b). 1 The Clerk of Court is kindly ordered to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly 2 || and CLOSE this case. 3 Dated this 31st day of July, 2025. 4 5 Ana jlosed Jer 6 ANNE R. TRAUM 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28