Opinion
1:20-cv-00163-SKO
03-16-2022
ANGELA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF LANCE E. ARMO and LANCE E. ARMO, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS
Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
On December 14, 2021, the Court held a settlement conference at which the parties settled the matter, and the parties were ordered to file dismissal documents within sixty days of the conference. (See Doc. 44.) On February 16, 2022, after the parties failed to file dismissal documents by the requisite deadline, the Court ordered the parties to file, by no later than February 23, 2022, dispositional documents requesting dismissal of the action due to a settlement. (Doc. 45.) The Court cautioned that “[f]ailure to comply with this order may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.” (Id.)
The parties again failed to file dismissal documents, and on February 24, 2022, (see Docket), the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”), by March 3, 2022, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to obey court orders. (Doc. 46.) The parties were cautioned that, if they failed to respond to the OSC, “the Court [would] dismiss this action in its entirety.” (Id.) To date, the parties have neither responded to the OSC nor filed dismissal documents. (See Docket.) Because the parties have repeatedly failed to respond to the Court's orders, and for the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to obey court orders.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 32, 33, 34.)
As the Court noted in the OSC (see Doc. 46), “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets, ” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
“Dismissal is a harsh penalty that the court should impose only in extreme circumstances.” Johnson v. Mehrabi, No. 2:13-CV-01519-KJM-DB, 2017 WL 1093911, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017), aff'd, 708 Fed.Appx. 416 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Raiford v. Pounds, 640 F.2d 944, 945 (9th Cir. 1981)). Courts consider the following five factors in determining the appropriateness of dismissal: (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. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986).
Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this case. The Court ordered the parties to file dispositional documents within sixty days of December 14, 2021, and over ninety days have now passed with no communication from either party. See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423 The Court also warned the parties of the risk of sanctions if they failed to comply with the Court's order to file dispositional documents, and specifically dismissal if they failed to respond to the OSC. (See Docs. 45, 46.) See also Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992) (“In cases involving sua sponte dismissal of an action, . . . there is a closer focus on” whether the Court warned the parties of potential “imminent dismissal of the case.”).
As to the third factor, Defendants have presumably not been prejudiced by the delay because it appears the case has settled. (See Doc. 44.) Indeed, Defendants are also complicit in failing to comply with the Court's orders. The fourth factor, which observes that public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, always weighs against dismissal, but, again, it appears that the instant case has settled, and the parties have given no further indication of any need to reach the merits of the case.
As for the final factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, the court finds that monetary sanctions for the parties' failure to obey court orders would be inadequate, given the complete lack of communication from the parties. As this Court noted in Johnson, 2017 WL 1093911, a factually similar case where the parties also failed to respond to the Court's orders to file dismissal documents: “To [impose monetary sanctions] would be unnecessarily myopic, however, and not further the ends of justice even if the parties were paying attention so as to comply this time. The parties apparently have moved on from this case, and the [C]ourt finds no injustice in following their lead.” Id. at *1. In sum, the Court finds that the balance of the five dismissal factors weights in favor of dismissing the case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
T IS SO ORDERED.