Ayeni-Aarons v. Best Buy Credit Services/CBNA ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OSBERT AYENI-AARONS, No. 2:18-cv-01625-MCE-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BEST BUY CREDIT SERVICES/CBNA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 The Court granted Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s (“Citibank”) Motion to Compel 19 Arbitration almost four years ago in August 2019. See ECF No. 53. On April 19, 2023, 20 the parties’ Joint Status Report stated that arbitration had not yet commenced because 21 Plaintiff Osbert Ayeni-Aarons (“Plaintiff”) and Citibank disagreed on who should initiate it. 22 See ECF No. 81. The Court admonished both parties for the immense delay and 23 ordered that Plaintiff initiate arbitration since it was his case. See ECF No. 82. Plaintiff 24 was given thirty (30) days to initiate arbitration and warned that his “failure to comply with 25 this Order will result in the imposition of sanctions for failure to prosecute and/or to 26 comply with the applicable rules and orders of this Court without further notice.” Id. 27 On June 21, 2023, approximately two and a half weeks beyond the thirty-day 28 deadline, Citibank filed a status report stating that it had “not been served with an 1 arbitration demand[,]” and thus requesting that it be dismissed from the case. ECF 2 No. 84, at 2 (“Counsel for Citibank has reached out to JAMS and AAA and neither 3 arbitration organization has any record of an arbitration filed by Plaintiff against 4 Citibank.”). To date, Plaintiff has not filed any response. 5 Eastern District of California Local Rule 110 provides that the “[f]ailure of counsel 6 or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds 7 for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 8 within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have inherent power to control 9 their dockets” and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, 10 where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 11 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). Prior to dismissing an action, however, this Court 12 must consider the following: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 13 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 14 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits[;] and 15 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. 16 Having considered each of the above factors, the Court finds dismissal of this 17 action as to Citibank only is warranted. Plaintiff’s inability to initiate arbitration in almost 18 four years and even after the issuance of a court order strongly suggests that he does 19 not want to pursue his claims against this Defendant. As for the risk of prejudice to 20 Citibank (and even the other Defendants in this case), “[t]he law presumes injury from 21 unreasonable delay.” Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 22 Plaintiff has had years to initiate arbitration and the Court even gave Plaintiff extra time 23 beyond the thirty-day deadline to do so. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply 24 would result in sanctions, but Plaintiff still chose not to act. 25 Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action against Citibank and has 26 failed to comply with the Court’s order, this action is hereby DISMISSED without 27 prejudice as to Citibank only. Not later than fourteen (14) days from the issuance of this 28 Order, the remaining parties shall file a joint status report with the Court as to the status 1 | of this case and the underlying state court case against Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc. 2 | Because the entire case was stayed pending the arbitration which never occurred, that 3 | stay is now LIFTED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 | Dated: July 5, 2023 7 □ late JES. Whip AX XC - 8 SENIOR UNITED STATES URTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28