In Re Sharyl G. Bloom ( 2020 )

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 ) Case No.: CV 20-00202-CJC SHARYL G. BLOOM, ) 12 ) ) 13 ) Appellant, ) 14 ) v. ) 15 ) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR ROYAL EQUITY LENDING, LLC, ) LACK OF PROSECUTION 16 ) ) 17 ) Appellee. ) 18 ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) 21 22 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 23 24 Appellant Sharyl G. Bloom filed this bankruptcy appeal on January 3, 2020. (Dkt. 25 1.) Her opening brief was initially due on March 7, 2020. (Dkt. 6.) On March 6, 2020, 26 Appellant filed a motion for extension, explaining that she needed an additional thirty 27 days to retain counsel. (Dkt. 8.) The Court granted the motion and gave her until April 1 motion for extension. (Dkt. 11.) That motion sought another extension to file an opening 2 brief so that Appellant could secure counsel. (Id.) The Court reluctantly granted 3 Appellant’s motion and gave her until May 19, 2020 to either retain counsel or file her 4 opening brief. (Dkt. 12.) That deadline has now come and gone, and once again, 5 Appellant has filed nothing. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice for 6 failure to prosecute. 7 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 10 District courts “have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose 11 sanctions, including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 12 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). When determining “whether to dismiss a claim for failure 13 to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following 14 factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 15 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the 16 availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of 17 cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Having 18 weighed these factors, the Court finds that on balance, they favor dismissal. 19 20 “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 21 dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). And “it is 22 incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine 23 noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. Appellant filed her notice of 24 appeal nearly six months ago but has not yet filed an opening brief despite the Court 25 granting her two extensions. This delay has frustrated the Court’s ability manage its 26 docket and secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this proceeding. 27 l Turning to the remaining factors, there 1s a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to 2 ||defendants when a plaintiff delays prosecution of an action. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 3 |} 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). The public policy favoring disposition on the merits 4 || generally weighs against dismissal, but “it logically rests upon an inherent presumption a 5 litigant has complied with the statutory obligations imposed under Rule 11(b) and has 6 ||manifested a diligent desire to prosecute his or her claims.” Ewing v. Ruano, 2012 WL 7 2138159, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2012). Though the Court has considered the 8 availability of less drastic alternatives, it finds that such alternatives are not appropriate 9 in light of the remaining four factors. 10 11 || WL CONCLUSION 12 13 For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of 14 |] prosecution. 15 16 DATED: May 22, 2020 A , A b— (k= 18 CORMAC J. CARNEY 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28