Gil Medina v. Gloria Hinojosa

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 21 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GIL MEDINA, an individual, No. 19-56042
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:14-cv-08797-ODW-AGR
v.
GLORIA HINOJOSA, an individual; MEMORANDUM*
AMSTEL EISENSTADT FRAZIER AND
HINOJOSA TALENT AGENCY, a
California corporation; ROBERT
RODRIGUEZ, an individual; MACHETE
KILLS, LLC, a Texas limited liability
company; EL CHINGON, INC., a Texas
corporation; TROUBLEMAKER
STUDIOS, L.P., a Texas limited
partnership; QUICK DRAW
PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Texas limited
liability company,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted June 17, 2021 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gil Medina appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in a business
tort action he and his company, ITN Flix, LLC (ITN),1 brought against the
Rodriguez Defendants2 and the Hinojosa Defendants.3 The district court granted in
part the Rodriguez Defendants’ anti-SLAPP4 motion to strike portions of Medina’s
original complaint, and dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the action for
failure to prosecute. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247,
1261–62 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Medina does not dispute that his 14-month
delay in filing an amended complaint was unreasonable, and the district court
correctly identified and reasonably weighed the five relevant factors before
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1
We previously dismissed ITN’s appeal.
2
Robert Rodriguez; Machete Kills, LLC; El Chingon, Inc.; Troublemaker
Studios, L.P.; and Quick Draw Productions, LLC.
3
Gloria Hinojosa and Amsel, Eisenstadt, Frazier & Hinojosa Talent Agency.
4
Strategic lawsuit against public participation. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§ 425.16(b)(1).
2
dismissing. See Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010),
overruled on other grounds by Langere v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, 983 F.3d
1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2020). The district court correctly recognized that “‘[t]he
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always’” weighs in favor of
dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Likewise, the
risk of prejudice to the defendants weighed in favor of dismissal, particularly in
light of Medina’s unreasonable and unexcused delay. See Hernandez v. City of El
Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 400–01 (9th Cir. 1998); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833
F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987). Medina agreed that the district court was in the best
position to evaluate the effects on its docket,5 and we decline to entertain Medina’s
newly-minted argument on this factor.6 Finally, the district court expressly
considered less-drastic alternatives to dismissal,7 and Medina has not argued that
any other sanction was more suitable.8 Because the district court reasonably
determined that four factors weighed in favor of dismissal, it did not abuse its
discretion by dismissing the case. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990.
5
Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991.
6
See Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380, 389 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996).
7
Anderson v. Air W. Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 525–26 (9th Cir. 1976).
8
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999); Greenwood v. FAA,
28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994).
3
In light of the dismissal for failure to prosecute, we decline to review the
district court’s order granting in part the Rodriguez Defendants’ anti-SLAPP
motion. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996); see also
Hyan v. Hummer, 825 F.3d 1043, 1046–47 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); Hall v.
City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
4