Orlando Garcia v. Camden Joonz, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ORLANDO GARCIA, ) Case No. CV 20-10700 FMO (JCx) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) 12 v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 13 CAMDEN JOONZ, LLC, et al., ) ) 14 ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 On December 10, 2020, the court issued its Standing Order Re: ADA Accessibility Cases 18 (see Dkt. 9, Court’s Order of December 10, 2020), which ordered plaintiff to file a motion for 19 default judgment no later than seven calendar days after default is entered by the Clerk. (Id. at 20 3). The court admonished plaintiff that “failure to file a motion for default judgment within seven 21 [] days of entry of default by the Clerk shall result in the dismissal of (1) the action and/or (2) the 22 defendant against whom the motion for default judgment should have been filed.” (Id. at 3-4) 23 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 24 (1962)). 25 Here, defendant Camden Joonz, LLC (“defendant” or “Camden Joonz”), the sole remaining 26 defendant, was served with the summons and complaint on December 28, 2020, by substituted 27 service. (See Dkt. 12, Proof of Service [as to Camden Joonz]). Accordingly, defendant’s 28 responsive pleading to the Complaint was due no later than January 28, 2021. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 12(a). Defendant did not answer the Complaint by this date, and on January 29, 2021, plaintiff 2 filed a Request for Entry of Default as to defendant. (See Dkt. 17, Request for Entry of Default 3 [as to Camden Joonz] (“Request”)). The clerk granted this Request on February 1, 2021. (See 4 Dkt. 18, Default by Clerk [as to Camden Joonz]). Plaintiffs were required to file a Motion for Default 5 Judgment by February 8, 2021, (see Dkt. 9, Court’s Order of December 10, 2020, at 3), but no 6 such motion has been filed as of the date of this Order.1 (See, generally, Dkt.). 7 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30, 82 S.Ct. at 1388 (authority to dismiss for failure 9 to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court 10 calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss 11 action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and 12 should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this 13 extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986). 14 These factors include: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 15 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability 16 of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” 17 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); see 18 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (“By its plain text, 19 a Rule 41(b) dismissal . . . requires ‘a court order’ with which an offending plaintiff failed to 20 comply.”). “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings 21 in order to show that it has considered these factors and [the Ninth Circuit] may review the record 22 independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 23 1261. 24 1 On February 8, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of provisional settlement, which was stricken by 25 the court on February 8, 2021. (See Dkt. 22, Court’s Order of February 9, 2021). In its order 26 striking the provisional notice of settlement, the court again admonished the parties that “[f]ailure to comply with all case deadlines and the orders issued by the court in this case shall result in the 27 imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to, the dismissal of the action for failure to comply with any applicable rules and/or court orders.” (Dkt. 22, Court’s Order of February 9, 2021) (citing 28 1 Having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that this action should 2 be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s failure to 3 file the motion to default judgment hinders the court’s ability to move this case toward disposition 4 and indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action. In other words, plaintiff’s 5 “noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing [her] to 6 control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 7 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, plaintiff was warned that failure to file 8 a motion for default judgment would result in a dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and 9 failure to comply with a court order. (See Dkt. 9, Court’s Order of December 10, 2020, at 3-4); see 10 also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the 11 court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration of alternatives requirement.”) 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is 13 persuaded that the instant action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and 14 failure to prosecute. 15 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, 16 without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court. 17 Dated this 12th day of February, 2021. /s/ 18 Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28