Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02297-WJM-KLM
02-07-2012
DARIN D. FORAN, and JOSEPH G. TAFOYA, JR., Plaintiff, v. ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC., Defendant.
Judge William J. Martínez
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS
This action was originally commenced in the Northern District of California as a wage-and-hour collective action. (See ECF No. 1.) On December 29, 2009, the Northern District of California denied the Motions for Class Certification. (Id. at 2.) The court then granted the Defendant's Motion to Sever and ordered that each individual plaintiff's claims be transferred to their home district. (Id. at 7.)
Darin D. Foran and Joseph G. Tafoya (together "Plaintiffs") were the two plaintiffs whose claims were transferred to the District of Colorado. The above-captioned case was opened on September 1, 2011. On September 7, 2011, the undersigned ordered Plaintiffs to file a new complaint not later than October 7, 2011. (ECF No. 7.) In response, Plaintiffs' counsel sought a 120 day stay to allow them time to regroup after the decertification. (ECF No. 8.) The Court granted Plaintiffs' request and stayed the case for 120 days. (ECF No. 15.) The Court ordered Plaintiffs' counsel to contact Mr. Foran and Mr. Tafoya to ascertain whether they wished to proceed with this litigation. (Id.) If they chose to proceed, they were ordered to file an amended complaint setting forth only Mr. Foran and Mr. Tafoya's individual claims not later than January 25, 2012. (Id.)
Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court's Order. On January 30, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiffs' counsel to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 23.) The Court specifically warned Plaintiffs that failure to timely show cause may result in dismissing of this action. (Id.) The Order to Show Cause was returnable February 6, 2012. (Id.) To date, Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause. They have also failed to file an amended complaint.
The Court may sua sponte dismiss an action if the plaintiffs fails to prosecute it with reasonable diligence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). "Such a dismissal is within the trial court's sound discretion and should be sustained absent an abuse of that discretion." S.E.C. v. Power Resources Corp., 495 F.2d 297, 298 (10th Cir. 1974). Given Plaintiffs' repeated failure to obey Court orders, the Court sees no option other than dismissing this case. Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, the above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to obey multiple court orders. The Clerk shall enter an appropriate judgment in favor of Defendant.
BY THE COURT:
__________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge