Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00701/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00701-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW PETERSON, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMSON INTERNATIONAL,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF CARSON BRENDA 

WITH PREJUDICE 

(Doc. 71)

On February 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Thomson International Inc.’s motion to 

compel and ordered Plaintiff Carson Brenda to produce no later than February 19, 2024, a copy of 

his driver’s license and a notarized version of a Centers for Disease Control authorization form 

for the release of relevant records. (Doc. 64.) The Court further ordered Plaintiff to appear for and 

complete his deposition no later than February 19, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure 

to appear at the deposition “may be grounds for sanctions, including evidentiary sanctions and 

dismissal of his action.” (Id. at 3 (citations omitted).) The undisputed record reflects that Plaintiff, 

who is proceeding in this matter in propria persona,

1

failed to comply with the Court’s order; he 

has yet to produce his driver’s license or the CDC authorization form, or to appear for his 

1 Carson Brenda is one of eight Plaintiffs in this case who raise similar claims against Defendant related to their 

consumption in July 2022 of onions sourced by Defendant. (Doc. 1.) On March 11, 2024, the Court granted attorney 

Lindsay Lien Amin’s motion to withdraw as counsel as to Plaintiff Brenda only, due to a breakdown of the attorneyclient relationship. (Doc. 68.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 76 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

deposition. (See Doc. 73.) 

On June 24, 2024, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff Brenda pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 37(b). (Docs. 71–73.) The motion was served by U.S. Mail on Plaintiff at his 

last known address. (Doc. 71 at 4.) Any opposition was due on July 8, 2024, but Plaintiff has 

failed to file any document or otherwise communicate with the Court. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) allows the Court to impose sanctions that are 

just, including dismissing the action or a specific party in the action, when that party “fails to 

obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); O’Connell v. 

Fernandez-Pol, 542 Fed. App’x 546, 547–48 (9th Cir. 2013). Rule 37 “authorizes the district 

court, in its discretion, to impose a wide range of sanctions when a party fails to comply with the 

rules of discovery or with court orders enforcing those rules.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 

709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983). “[D]ismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be 

imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).

To impose the sanction of dismissal, the Court must first find that the party’s 

noncompliance was due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Nat. Beverage 

Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995); Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 463 (C.D. Cal. 

2014). In addition, the Court must consider the following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of 

prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Anheuser-Busch, 69 F.3d at 348 

(citations omitted).

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s conduct is willful. He has been ordered to 

comply with his discovery obligations and warned that noncompliance with discover orders may 

result in dismissal. Absent any contrary representations from Plaintiff, his failure to participate in 

any way demonstrates a conscious decision to not comply with the Court’s discovery order. See 

Chase v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, No. 2:20-CV-08841-ODW-SK, 2022 

WL 2052657, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2022) (collecting cases). 

As for the Anheuser-Bush factors, “[t]he first two of these factors favor the imposition of 

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 76 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

sanctions in most cases, while the fourth cuts against a default or dismissal sanction.” Wanderer 

v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). Therefore, “the key factors are prejudice and 

availability of lesser sanctions.” Id. Defendant is prejudiced by its inability to obtain CDC records 

regarding Plaintiff and to question Plaintiff about his claims. Id. (“[T]he failures of the defendants 

to appear at their depositions, which were compounded by repeated noncompliance with court 

orders to produce documents constituted a clear interference with the plaintiffs’ ability to prove 

the claims and to obtain a decision in the case. The existence of prejudice is palpable.”). 

The Court also concludes that no lesser sanction than dismissal will serve the interest of 

justice. The Court’s warning that failure to comply with its discovery order could lead to 

dismissal constitutes an attempt at a lesser sanction. Chase, 2022 WL 2052657, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 

Apr. 8, 2022) (citing In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 

1217, 1229 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal 

can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” (citations omitted)). Despite the 

warning, Plaintiff Brenda has failed to participate in discovery. Dismissal with prejudice is 

therefore appropriate. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Carson Brenda is DISMISSED from this action

with prejudice. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Plaintiff Brenda from the docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2024 

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 76 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 3