Alonzo v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALENTINO ALONZO, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-1682 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION ) TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING THE ACTION 13 v. ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) 14 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., ) (Doc. 19) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Valentino Alonzo is a former employee of Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and asserts he suffered 18 retaliation and wrongful termination following his return from leave. Wal-Mart seeks dismissal of the 19 action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 19.) Because Alonzo failed 20 to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the Local Rules, the motion to dismiss is 21 GRANTED. 22 I. Procedural History 23 Alonzo initiated this action by filing a complaint in Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 24 20CECG02147, on July 23, 2020. (Doc. 1-1 at 9.) At that time, Alonzo was represented by counsel, 25 Abraham Mathew. (See id. at 26.). Wal-Mart initiated the matter before this Court by filing a Notice 26 of Removal on November 25, 2020. (Doc. 1.) 27 On June 29, 2021, the Court issued its “Case Management and Scheduling Order” and set the 28 deadlines governing the action. (Doc. 8.) After Wal-Mart served discovery requests, Alonzo’s counsel 1 reported that Alonzo “refused to cooperate” with prosecuting his case. (Doc. 11-1 at 2.) Mr. Mathew 2 stated his office made “numerous requests… asking [Alonzo] to provide information, including 3 responses to discovery.” (Id. at 2, ¶ 3.) Mr. Mathew reported Alonzo did “not provide[] discovery 4 responses, documents and other information necessary for [the] firm to provide effective 5 representation.” (Id.) Due to Alonzo’s “failure to cooperate and assist in the prosecution,” counsel 6 moved to withdraw as counsel on November 18, 2021. (Id.; see also Doc. 11 at 3.) 7 On December 22, 2021, the Court granted counsel’s request to withdraw. (Doc. 16.) The Court 8 directed Alonzo to “have new counsel enter an appearance on his behalf or alternatively file a notice to 9 advise the court whether he wishes to proceed in this matter pro se” within thirty days of the date of 10 service. (Id. at 3.) In addition, the Court informed Alonzo that if he failed to timely comply with the 11 order, “the Court may recommend a dismissal [of] this action under … Fed. R. Civ. P. 41” for his 12 “failure to prosecute this action and/or comply with a court order.” (Id.) Aternatively, the Court 13 indicated it “may consider other appropriate sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.” (Id.) The Court’s 14 order was served at the last known mailing address for Alonzo. (See Docket.) However, the order was 15 returned as “Undeliverable, Not at this Address” on March 25, 2022.1 16 According to Hilda Aguilar, counsel for Wal-Mart, the company contacted Alonzo via the 17 email and mailing addresses provided by Alonzo’s prior counsel on February 2, 2022. (Doc. 19-1 at 4, 18 ¶ 17.) Ms. Aguilar reports the company “provid[ed] further notice of the Court’s order” and informed 19 Alonzo of the intent to file the motion to dismiss “absent any contact from Plaintiff.” (Id.) She reports 20 that Alonzo responded to the email the same date and “requested a hardcopy of the correspondence be 21 provided to an alternate mailing address.” (Id. at 5, ¶ 18.) In a follow-up email, Alonzo also informed 22 Ms. Aguilar that he was available for a telephonic meet and confer regarding the discovery requests, 23 which occurred on February 11, 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 19-20.) Ms. Aguilar reports that since that time, she 24 has not heard from Alonzo, or any attorney representing him in the matter. (Id.). To date, Alonzo has 25 not responded to the discovery requests propounded on November 3, 2021. (Id. at 3, ¶ 9.) 26 27 1 Notably, all documents issued by the Court in November and December 2021 were returned as “Undeliverable, Not at this Address” between March 24 and March 28, 2022. (See Docket.) However, the minute order served on April 1, 2022— 28 related to the motion now pending— has not been returned. 1 On March 30, 2022, Wal-Mart filed the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which is now 2 pending before the Court. (Doc. 19.) The motion was served upon Alonzo at the only address known 3 to the Court, as well as the address apparently provided by Alonzo to Wal-Mart. (See Doc. 19 at 8.) 4 No opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed with the Court. 5 II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders 6 Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “If [a] plaintiff fails to prosecute 7 or to comply with . . . a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against 8 it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Likewise, this Court’s Local Rules provide: “Failure of counsel or of a party 9 to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and 10 all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. 11 The Ninth Circuit explained, “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and 12 in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. 13 Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action 14 based upon a party’s failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute an action, or failure to comply 15 with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure 16 to comply with local rules); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 17 failure to comply with an order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 18 (dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local rules). 19 III. Requirements of the Local Rules 20 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing without counsel is required to keep the Court 21 apprised of a mailing address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned 22 by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within 23 sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice 24 for failure to prosecute.” LR 183(b) Because 63 days have passed since the Court’s orders began being 25 returned as undeliverable on March 24, 2022, Alonzo failed to comply with the Local Rules. 26 IV. Discussion and Analysis 27 To determine whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute, the Court must consider several 28 factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need 1 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 2 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 3 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 4 A. Public interest and the Court’s docket 5 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s 6 interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 7 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 8 dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 9 managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will 10 not hold, this case in abeyance based upon Alonzo’s failure to take action before the Court to prosecute 11 his claims. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining a 12 plaintiff has the burden “to move toward... disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory 13 and evasive tactics”). Thus, these factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the action. 14 B. Prejudice to Defendant 15 To determine whether Wal-Mart has been prejudiced, the Court must “examine whether the 16 plaintiff’s actions impair the … ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of 17 the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 F.2d 611, 618 (9th 18 Cir. 1985)) In this case, Alonzo failed to respond to the propounded discovery, even when represented 19 by counsel, and has not communicated a proper mailing address to the Court. These failures 20 significantly impair Wal-Mart’s ability to prepare for a trial. Moreover, a presumption of prejudiced 21 arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays the prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 22 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 23 C. Consideration of less drastic sanctions 24 The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering 25 the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States v. Nat’l Medical 26 Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). However, no lesser sanction is feasible given the 27 Court's inability to communicate with Alonzo. 28 /// 1 D. Public policy 2 Given Alonzo’s failure to prosecute the action— and his corresponding failure to comply □□□□ 3 || the Local Rules— the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factor 4 favor of dismissal. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public policy 5 || favoring disposition of cases on their merits ... weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outwei 6 || the other four factors”). 7 || ¥. Conclusion and Order 8 Alonzo failed to prosecute this action, and failed to comply with the requirements of the Loca 9 Rules. As set forth above, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of dismissal of the 10 || matter. Because Alonzo has not received any orders served at the only address known to the Court, 11 || dismissal without prejudice is appropriate, as provided under Local Rule 183(b). Accordingly, the 12 || Court ORDERS: 13 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. 14 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18] Dated: _May 27, 2022 ( LAW ph L. wary 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28