Dewald v. Cafe Serendipity Holdings Inc ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:19-cv-0764-JAD-VCF 4 Jerome W. Dewald, 5 Plaintiff Order Dismissing Case 6 v. 7 Café Serendipity Holdings, Inc., 8 Defendant 9 10 11 On November 18, 2019, I gave pro se plaintiff Jerome W. Dewald until December 18, 12 2019, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 13 because the amount in controversy in this action appears to fall well below the jurisdictional 14 threshold.1 That deadline passed without any response by Dewald or request to extend the 15 deadline to file one. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 17 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal” of a case.2 18 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a 19 court order, or failure to comply with local rules.3 In determining whether to dismiss an action 20 for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the 21 22 1 ECF No. 27. 23 24 2 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 25 3 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 26 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 27 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to 28 comply with local rules). 1 ] || court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 2 || litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 3 || (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 4 || drastic alternatives.* 5 I find that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this case. The risk-of- 6 || prejudice factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from th 7 || occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a document ordered by the court or prosecuting an 8 || action.> A court’s warning to a party that failing to obey the court’s order or comply with a rule 9 || will result in dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.© Dewald was 10 || expressly warned that dismissal would result if he failed to show cause by the December18th 11 ||deadline.’ Although the fourth factor weighs against dismissal, it is greatly outweighed here by 12 || those favoring dismissal. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without 14 || prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE 15 || THIS CASE. 16 7 U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey Dated: December 26, 2019 18 19 20 21 22 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 24 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 25 ||° Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 26 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 27 7 ECF No. 27 at 5. 28