Case ID: f-appx_323/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Antonio GELUZ; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Erlinda Aquino, Plaintiff, v. KINDRED HOSPITAL, doing business as THC-Orange County, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Kindred Pharmacy Services, Inc.; et al., Defendants.
    No. 07-56210.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2009.
    
    Filed April 24, 2009.
    Matthew J. Norfleet, Esquire, Law Offices, D. Gregory Valenza, Esquire, Shaw Valenza LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
    Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Geluz, Marilyn Geluz, and Estela Hernandez (“Appellants”) appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because appellants repeatedly failed to comply with court orders. See id. at 1260-61 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order); see also Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th Cir.1994) (“[An] express warning regarding the possibility of dismissal is [not] a prerequisite to a Rule 41(b) dismissal when dismissal follows a noticed motion[.]”)

Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.