Ward v. Lawrence ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANJALI WARD, et al., Case No. 19-cv-00183-JST 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: ECF No. 195 10 JUDITH ELIZABETH LAWRENCE, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 On April 19, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint for failure to 14 comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. ECF No. 195. The Court granted leave to amend 15 and ordered Plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint within 28 days. Because Plaintiffs did not 16 comply with that deadline, the Court now dismisses this case without prejudice. 17 In its April 19 order, the Court explained that it had previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ first 18 amended complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 and provided specific guidance regarding 19 how the complaint should be amended to comply with the Rule. Id. at 1. The Court had then 20 granted Plaintiffs three extensions of the deadline to file their second amended complaint; in total, 21 Plaintiffs were given 154 days—over five months—to revise their complaint to comply with the 22 Rule. Id.; see ECF Nos. 129, 133, 135, 140. Even given specific guidance and five months to 23 revise, Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint still did not comply with the Rule. Id. at 5-6. The 24 Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint within 28 days and again issued 25 specific instructions regarding how to draft a complaint to comply with Rule 8. Id. at 7-8. The 26 Court also warned that, “[i]f Plaintiffs d[id] not file a third amended complaint within 28 days, or 27 if Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint d[id] not comply with Rule 8, the case w[ould] be dismissed 1 Plaintiffs then requested several extensions of their deadline to file a third amended 2 complaint, which the Court denied. ECF Nos. 197, 199, 201-03. The filing deadline has now 3 || passed, and Plaintiffs have not filed a third amended complaint. 4 Dismissal is appropriate here. “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 5 prosecute or comply with a court order, the [c]ourt must weigh the following factors: (1) the 6 || public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 7 (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants[]; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 8 || public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 9 || 642 (Oth Cir. 2002). “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 10 || dismissal.” Jd. at 642. Plaintiffs’ conduct impedes the Court from moving this case toward 11 disposition and interferes with the Court’s ability to manage its docket, which favors dismissal. 12 || The Court can discern no risk of prejudice to defendants, and the Court previously warned 13 Plaintiffs that failure to comply with Court-imposed deadlines would result in dismissal. See 14 || Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[A] district court’s warning to a party 3 15 || that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of a 16 || alternatives’ requirement.”). While the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits 3 17 weighs against dismissal, it does not overcome the other four factors in this case. See In re 18 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]his 19 || factor ‘lends little support’ to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition 20 || onthe merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.”). Weighing all of these 21 factors, the Court finds that dismissal of this case is appropriate. 22 Plaintiffs request that any dismissal be without prejudice. ECF No. 202. Mindful of 23 Plaintiffs’ pro se status, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter 24 || judgment and close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: July 7, 2023 . 27 JON S. TIGAR 28 ited States District Judge