Case ID: f-appx_713/html/0568-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

REACHLOCAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PPC CLAIM LIMITED, a British limited company; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56644
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 22, 2018
    
      Paul Fricke, I, Esquire, Amjad Mah-mood Khan, Attorney, Rowennakete Paul Barnes, Esquire, Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Kieran Paul Cassidy, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

ReachLocal, Inc. appeals from the district court’s order dismissing sua sponte for failure to prosecute ReachLocal’s diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992), and we reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed ReachLocal’s action for failure to prosecute at a status conference attended by counsel for both parties. In doing so, the district court abused its discretion because it failed to warn ReachLocal of the possibility of dismissal, and did not consider less drastic alternatives. See id. at 273-74.

We deny ReachLocal’s request for reassignment to a different district judge on remand. See Krechman v. County, of Riverside, 723 F.3d 1104, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth factors warranting reassignment).

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.