Cuellar v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JIMMY CUELLAR, Case No. 1:23-cv-1075-JLT-CDB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 10 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS 11 THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, (Doc. 16) 12 Defendant. 13 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Jimmy Cuellar commenced this action by filing a complaint in state court, which was 16 removed to this Court soon thereafter. (Doc. 1.) Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss 17 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 5.) The assigned magistrate judge 18 considered the motion and found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim because there were “no 19 allegations in the Complaint addressing Defendant or its involvement in the event giving rise to 20 Plaintiff’s claims.” (Doc. 14 at 3.) The magistrate judge further determined that “Plaintiff’s 21 complaint alleges neither the existence of an ERISA plan nor one or more provisions that entitle 22 him, as the decedent’s son, to receive benefits.” (Id. at 6.) 23 The Court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in part. (Doc. 24 16.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend and ordered Plaintiff to file 25 an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of its order. The Court admonished 26 Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint within the 30-day period “will result in the 27 dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders.” Id. at 2 (emphasis in original). The deadline to file an amended complaint has passed and Plaintiff 1 has not filed an amended complaint. 2 II. APPLICABLE LAW 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the Court to involuntarily dismiss an action 4 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a Court order. See Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 41(b); Applied Underwriters v. Lichtnegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations 6 omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 7 (finding that Rule 41(b) permits courts to sua sponte dismiss actions for a plaintiff’s failure to 8 prosecute or comply with the court’s orders). 9 Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but it “is incumbent upon the Court to manage its 10 docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 11 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Before dismissing an action under Rule 41, the Court must 12 consider: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 13 manage a docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendant; (4) public policy favoring disposition on 14 the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 15 890. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of pro se 16 action when plaintiff failed to follow the court’s directions). The Court need not make explicit 17 findings as to each of the five factors. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th 18 Cir. 2000). 19 III. ANALYSIS 20 After considering each of the above-stated factors, the Court finds that this case should be 21 dismissed without prejudice. The first factor, the expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to 22 be in the public interest and always favors dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 23 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). The second factor is also satisfied. Plaintiff has been non- 24 responsive to the Court’s directions, which undermines its abilities to efficiently manage its 25 docket. See (Docs. 7, 14.) The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a Plaintiff’s 26 delay in prosecuting an action creates a presumption of injury. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 27 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 1 | disposition of cases on their merits. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. However, “this factor lends 2 | little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case towards disposition on the merits 3 | but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 4 | Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006). 5 Finally, the Court’s warning that Plaintiffs failure to obey its orders will result in 6 | dismissal satisfies the “consideration of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 7 | The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint will result 8 | in the dismissal of this action. (Doc. 16 p. 2.) Furthermore, the instant dismissal is without 9 | prejudice, a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 Considering the foregoing, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 12 | Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action and comply with the Court’s orders under Fed. R. Civ. 13 | P. 41 and Local Rule 110. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: _ November 30, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28