Sanchez v. Law Office of Lance E. Armo ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ANGELA SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00163-SKO 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 v. 15 LAW OFFICE OF LANCE E. ARMO and LANCE E. ARMO, 16 Defendants. 17 _____________________________________/ 18 19 On December 14, 2021, the Court held a settlement conference at which the parties settled 20 the matter, and the parties were ordered to file dismissal documents within sixty days of the 21 conference. (See Doc. 44.) On February 16, 2022, after the parties failed to file dismissal 22 documents by the requisite deadline, the Court ordered the parties to file, by no later than February 23 23, 2022, dispositional documents requesting dismissal of the action due to a settlement. (Doc. 24 45.) The Court cautioned that “[f]ailure to comply with this order may be grounds for the 25 imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause non- 26 compliance with this order.” (Id.) 27 The parties again failed to file dismissal documents, and on February 24, 2022, (see Docket), 28 the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”), by March 3, 2022, why the action should not be 1 dismissed for failure to obey court orders. (Doc. 46.) The parties were cautioned that, if they 2 failed to respond to the OSC, “the Court [would] dismiss this action in its entirety.” (Id.) To date, 3 the parties have neither responded to the OSC nor filed dismissal documents. (See Docket.) 4 Because the parties have repeatedly failed to respond to the Court’s orders, and for the reasons 5 explained below, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to obey court orders. 1 6 As the Court noted in the OSC (see Doc. 46), “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control 7 their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of 8 an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 9 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or 10 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 11 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 12 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 13 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 14 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 15 “Dismissal is a harsh penalty that the court should impose only in extreme circumstances.” 16 Johnson v. Mehrabi, No. 2:13–CV–01519–KJM–DB, 2017 WL 1093911, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17 23, 2017), aff’d, 708 F. App'x 416 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Raiford v. Pounds, 640 F.2d 944, 945 18 (9th Cir. 1981)). Courts consider the following five factors in determining the appropriateness of 19 dismissal: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 20 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 21 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. 22 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). 23 Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this case. The Court ordered the 24 parties to file dispositional documents within sixty days of December 14, 2021, and over ninety 25 days have now passed with no communication from either party. See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423 26 The Court also warned the parties of the risk of sanctions if they failed to comply with the Court’s 27 order to file dispositional documents, and specifically dismissal if they failed to respond to the 28 1 OSC. (See Docs. 45, 46.) See also Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992) (“In cases 2 involving sua sponte dismissal of an action, . . . there is a closer focus on” whether the Court 3 warned the parties of potential “imminent dismissal of the case.”). 4 As to the third factor, Defendants have presumably not been prejudiced by the delay because 5 it appears the case has settled. (See Doc. 44.) Indeed, Defendants are also complicit in failing to 6 comply with the Court’s orders. The fourth factor, which observes that public policy favors 7 disposition of cases on their merits, always weighs against dismissal, but, again, it appears that the 8 instant case has settled, and the parties have given no further indication of any need to reach the 9 merits of the case. 10 As for the final factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, the court finds that monetary 11 sanctions for the parties’ failure to obey court orders would be inadequate, given the complete lack 12 of communication from the parties. As this Court noted in Johnson, 2017 WL 1093911, a factually 13 similar case where the parties also failed to respond to the Court’s orders to file dismissal 14 documents: “To [impose monetary sanctions] would be unnecessarily myopic, however, and not 15 further the ends of justice even if the parties were paying attention so as to comply this time. The 16 parties apparently have moved on from this case, and the [C]ourt finds no injustice in following 17 their lead.” Id. at *1. In sum, the Court finds that the balance of the five dismissal factors weights 18 in favor of dismissing the case. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the 20 Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: March 16, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28