Thomas v. Assurity Life Insurance Company ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:18-cv-02261-JAD-DJA 4 Z.T., a minor, by CRISTY THOMAS, his Guardian, and CRISTY THOMAS, 5 Plaintiffs Order Dismissing Action 6 for Want of Prosecution v. 7 Assurity Life Insurance Company, 8 Defendant 9 10 On June 8, 2021, the Court entered an order advising that his case would be dismissed for 11 want of prosecution if no action was taken by July 8, 2021.1 Plaintiffs filed nothing. District 12 courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they 13 may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.2 A court may 14 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, 15 or failure to comply with local rules.3 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of 16 these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 17 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 18 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 19 drastic alternatives.4 20 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 21 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 22 23 1 ECF No. 36 (notice regarding intent to dismiss for want of prosecution). 24 2 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 25 3 See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 26 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 27 4 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24. 28 1 1 || prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 2 the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 3 || prosecuting an action.> A court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s order will 4 in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement,° and 5 || that warning was given here.’ The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases 6 || on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without 8 || prejudice for want of prosecution. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 9 | CP} Abs a's, = 10 US. Dist dge jennifer Dorsey 11 Dated: September 29, 2024. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir, 1976). 26 || « Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 27 7 ECF No. 36. 28