Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00319/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00319-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Miller Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRA, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ACTUS LEND LEASE, LLC, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0319 AWI SMS 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF PROSECUTION

On March 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed this action under the Miller Act. On June 10, 2005,

the parties and the court stipulated to stay this action pending arbitration. On January 6, 2007,

the Clerk of the Court issued a minute order setting a March 5, 2007 hearing date to determine if

this action should be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The order stated any opposition to

dismissal was to be filed five court days prior to the hearing. No opposition was timely filed. The

case was called during the court’s afternoon calender on March 5, 2007, but no party appeared. 

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. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9thCir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution the court

must consider several factors, including: (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

Case 1:05-cv-00319-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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

drastic alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

1260-61. 

At this time, the court finds dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute is

appropriate. The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest

in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending for two years. 

Plaintiff has not filed a document with this court in over a year. The court cannot manage its

docket if it maintains cases in which the plaintiff has failed to litigate Plaintiff’s case. The

public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of

such cases so that the court’s limited resources may be spent on cases in which the litigant is

actually proceeding. Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits also has little or

no weight in actions where the parties have not contacted the court in a year. The availability of

less drastic sanctions has been considered, but given that no party has not contacted the court in

over a year and no party responded to the court’s January 6, 2007 order, the court has no effective

sanction but to close the case. In addition, it appears that this action was resolved through

arbitration. The January 6, 2007 order informed Plaintiff that any opposition to dismissal must

be filed by February 26, 2007 and he must appear at the March 5, 2007 hearing. Finally, the risk

of prejudice to Defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West,

542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00319-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2