From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collier v. City of Union City

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 28, 2021
21-cv-00462-JSC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-00462-JSC

12-28-2021

DARREN J COLLIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF UNION CITY, Defendant.


ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Re: Dkt. No. 28

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On January 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed this section 1983 action against the City of Union City following an encounter with Union City Police Officers. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 22, 2021, the Court referred the action to Magistrate Judge Westmore for a settlement conference. (Dkt. No. 20.) Since the referral, Plaintiffs' counsel has repeatedly failed to appear at telephonic scheduling conferences and has failed to communicate with Judge Westmore. (Dkt. Nos. 23, 25, 26, 27.) As a result, on December 8, 2021, the Court vacated the settlement conference referral order and ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow court orders. (Dkt. No. 28.) The Order directed Plaintiffs to file a response on or before December 16, 2021 and warned Plaintiffs that a failure to file a response or to show good cause would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have still failed to respond.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b)). “A Rule 41(b) dismissal must be supported by a showing of unreasonable delay.” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is appropriate, the court must weigh the following factors: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Here, four of the five Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. “The first two factors-the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court's need to manage its docket-relate to the “efficient administration of judicial business for the benefit of all litigants with cases pending.” Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1980). By failing to comply with Judge Westmore's orders, failing to appear for multiple pre-settlement telephonic scheduling conferences, and failing to respond to either Judge Westmore or the undersigned's orders to show cause, Plaintiffs have delayed adjudication of this action. Non-compliance with procedural rules and the Court's orders wastes “valuable time that [the Court] could have devoted to other ... criminal and civil cases on its docket.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

As for the third factor, while “the pendency of the lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial itself to warrant dismissal, ” the delay caused by Plaintiffs' failure to prosecute this action despite the Court's orders weighs in favor of dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 1999).

The fourth factor is the availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court already cautioned Plaintiffs that failure to respond would result in dismissal of this action. (Dkt. No. 28.) Thus, the Court has fulfilled its “obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Ferdick, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“A district court's warning to a party that failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of [less drastic sanctions] requirement.”). The fourth factor thus weighs in favor of dismissal.

The last factor, which favors disposition on the merits, by definition weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal”).

In sum, four of the five relevant factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissing this action in its entirety. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (affirming dismissal where three factors favored dismissal, while two factors weighed against dismissal). The Court therefore DISMISSES this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 .

All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 12.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Collier v. City of Union City

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 28, 2021
21-cv-00462-JSC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2021)
Case details for

Collier v. City of Union City

Case Details

Full title:DARREN J COLLIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF UNION CITY, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 28, 2021

Citations

21-cv-00462-JSC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2021)