Sheets v. Lippert ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TAYLOR BRUCE SHEETS, No. 2:19-cv-02451-DJC-AC 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 JASON W. LIPPERT, 14 Defendant. 15 16 On, October 11, 2022, the parties engaged in a settlement conference before 17 Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. (ECF No. 33.) That settlement conference was 18 successful as the parties reached a settlement agreement and Judge Delaney ordered 19 the parties to file dispositional documents. ( ) Plaintiff allegedly refused to sign the 20 written settlement agreement and dispositional documents were not filed. (ECF No. 21 47-1 at 1–2; ECF No. 39.) On March 22, 2023, District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller 22 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 23 prosecute based on the failure to file dispositional documents due to Plaintiff’s refusal 24 to sign them. (ECF No. 37.) Dispositional documents were still not filed. Following 25 the undersigned denying Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for production of a video of the 26 incident at issue in this action, Defendant filed a motion to enforce the settlement 27 agreement which Plaintiff opposed. (ECF No. 37.) On September 5, 2023, the Court 28 granted that motion, finding that there was a valid and enforceable settlement 1 agreement between the parties, and ordered Plaintiff to “execute the written 2 settlement, release agreement, and payee data record form as stated in the 3 settlement agreement” within thirty days of that order. (ECF No. 49.) The Court also 4 expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with that order “will result in an order 5 dismissing this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.” 6 ( at 4.) Dispositional documents have still not been filed, despite the Court’s prior 7 order. 8 “District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the 9 exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, 10 dismissal of a case.” , 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 11 , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)). District courts must weigh 12 the following factors in determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to 13 prosecute or failure to comply with court orders: “(1) the public's interest in 14 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the 15 risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic 16 alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” 17 , 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing , 963 F.2d at 18 1260–61). 19 1. Public’s Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation 20 “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 21 dismissal.” , 291 F.3d at 642. This is especially true given that this case, 22 which has been pending since December 7, 2019, has remained open despite the 23 parties reaching a valid and enforceable settlement agreement over a year ago. ( 24 ECF Nos. 33, 49.) Accordingly, this factor strongly favors dismissal. 25 2. Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket 26 “The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a 27 particular case interferes with docket management and the public interest. . . . It is 28 incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine 1 noncompliance of litigants . . . .” , 291 F.3d at 642. Here, Plaintiff’s 2 noncompliance with multiple orders has hindered the Court’s ability to effectively and 3 efficiently manage its docket. As noted, the parties reached a settlement agreement 4 over a year before this order. Despite this fact, this case continues to consume the 5 resources and time of the Court and parties. On multiple occasions the Court has 6 sought to resolve this case and manage its docket but has been unable to make any 7 meaningful progress in doing so due to Plaintiff’s refusal to sign the dispositional 8 documents and comply with the Court’s orders. As such, this factor weighs strongly in 9 favor of dismissal. 10 3. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants 11 “To prove prejudice, a defendant must establish that plaintiff’s actions impaired 12 defendant’s ability to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful 13 decision of the case.” , 291 F.3d at 642 (citing 14 , 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987)). The “pendency of a lawsuit is not 15 sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” 16 Here, the prejudice to the Defendant in this matter is plain on its face. 17 Defendant negotiated in good faith with Plaintiff, expending time and effort to do so. 18 As a result, the parties reached a valid and enforceable agreement that would have 19 resolved this case outright. ( ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff’s refusal to sign the settlement 20 agreement has directly prevented — and continues to prevent — the disposition of this 21 action and has resulted in Defendants needing to make additional filings in this action 22 and appear at hearings that otherwise would have been entirely unnecessary. 23 , No. 18-cv-00008-HG-WRP, 2020 WL 1861656, 24 at *7–8 (D. Haw. April 13, 2020) (finding prejudice to the defendant partially as a result 25 of plaintiff’s refusal to sign an enforceable settlement agreement). Thus, this factor 26 also weighs in favor of dismissal. 27 //// 28 //// 1 4. Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives 2 A court must consider the impact of the dismissal and the adequacy of less 3 drastic sanctions before dismissing a case or claim. , 833 F.2d at 131–32. 4 Warning a plaintiff that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can suffice 5 to meet the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. at 132. 6 The Court has made numerous attempts to resolve this action without dismissal. 7 In March of this year, the previously assigned District Judge ordered Plaintiff to show 8 cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file the dispositional 9 documents. (ECF No. 37.) The undersigned sought to resolve the issues via a status 10 conference with the parties ( ECF No. 42) and by ordering the parties to meet and 11 confer ( ECF No. 44) to no avail. Following the Court’s prior order finding the 12 settlement agreement to be valid and enforceable, the Court granted Plaintiff a further 13 thirty days to sign the dispositional documents. (ECF No. 49.) These facts alone 14 appear sufficient to indicate that no other less drastic alternatives were available but 15 the Court also expressly advised Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s orders 16 would result in this action being dismissed. ( at 4) In light of the Court’s numerous 17 attempts to make use of less drastic alternatives and the Court’s warning to the 18 Plaintiff that the action would be dismissed if he failed to comply with the Court’s 19 orders, this factor weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. , 833 F.2d at 132. 20 5. Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on Their Merits 21 Public policy favors the disposition of cases on the merits. 22 , 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998); , 291 F.3d at 643. Thus, this 23 factor weighs against dismissal. 24 CONCLUSION 25 Four of the five factors described above weigh strongly in favor of dismissal and 26 the factors in favor of dismissal outweigh the general public policy favoring 27 disposition on the merits. , 963 F.2d at 1263 (finding that the public policy 28 //// 1 | favoring disposition on the merits plus an additional factor opposing dismissal was 2 | insufficient to overcome three other factors strongly favoring dismissal). 3 Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that 4 | this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJDUICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 | 41(b). Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) and Plaintiff's Motion for 6 | Miscellaneous Relief (ECF No. 53) are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is 7 | directed to close this case. This order resolves all pending motions. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _December 1, 2023 Donal J CoD bra Hon. Daniel alabretta " UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | □□□ - sheets! 9ev02451.dism 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28