MEDICAL CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC. v. CLAY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 MEDICAL CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., a ) Case No.: 2:04-CV-01102-LRH 10 Nevada Corporation, ) ) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 vs. ) ) 13 ) CLAY MEDICAL SERVICES ) 14 INCORPORATED, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 18 On November 3, 2021, Minute Order (ECF No. 37) gave notice to the Plaintiff that the 19 Court intended to dismiss this action for want of prosecution pursuant to Local Rule 41-1 if no 20 action was taken by November 30, 2021. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the minute order 21 within the allotted time. 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 23 24 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 25 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 26 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 27 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th 28 1 Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 2 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 3 amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 4 dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 5 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal 6 7 for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 8 (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 9 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 10 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s 11 12 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 13 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 14 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 15 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 16 46 F.3d at 53. 17 18 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 19 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 20 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, 21 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 22 23 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 24 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is 25 greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning 26 to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the 27 “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132- 28 1 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s minute order (ECF No. 37) expressly stated: “If n * || action is taken in this case by November 30, 2021, the Court shall enter an order of dismissal fo 3 want of prosecution.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result fro 4 5 noncompliance with the Court’s order and has failed to show good cause why this action shoul 6 || not be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Local Rule 41-1. / IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for want of prosecutio 8 pursuant to Local Rule 41-1. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 9 DATED: December 2, 2021. 11 Y R. HICKS 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:04-cv-01102

Filed Date: 12/2/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/25/2024