Opinion
CIVIL 16-00041
10-06-2022
JARRET HOGUE and GELYNE GAMBITO, Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC COMPOSITES, Inc., dbaShipright! and boat SHOP, AMANDA YOUNG, CHRISTOPHEAR YOUNG, MOYLAN'S INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Defendants.
ORDER
FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
On March 29, 2022, the court issued an Order to Show Cause against Plaintiffs and directed them to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Order, ECF No. 160. The court received an email communication from Mr. Jarret Hogue stating that they “do not have the time, nor resources, to represent [themselves] in this case.” See ECF No. 161. The Order to Show Cause was served on Plaintiffs via mail at three different addresses: one was the P.O. Box address provided by Mr. Hogue; the second one was at their counsel of record, which was returned as undeliverable; and the third was at a residential address, which was also returned as undeliverable.
The court has the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1984). “[T]he district court must weigh the court's need to manage its docket, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants against the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. (citations omitted).
In order for the court to manage its docket and to reflect the public's interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the court finds that dismissal of this case is warranted. The court finds that no less drastic sanction is available, as Mr. Hogue had expressly informed the court that they do not have the time nor the resources to represent themselves in this case. Further, despite having been served with the Order to Show Cause, they have not shown cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. For the reasons stated herein, the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.