Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00934/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00934-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James M. Mitchell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Silvia A. Mitchell,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-0934-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Silvia A. Mitchell's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

22), as well as Plaintiff James M. Mitchell’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24). 

On January 14, 2008, defendant Silvia A. Mitchell moved to dismiss this action with

prejudice pursuant to Rule 16(f) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case and his failure to comply with this Court’s

scheduling order. Shortly thereafter, on January 17, 2008, in lieu of filing a Response to the

motion, Plaintiff filed his own voluntary Motion to Dismiss, wherein he requested that case

be dismissed without prejudice. He did not provide the Court with any explanation as to the

reason for dismissing the case, the reason for his failure to prosecute, or his failure to comply

with this Court’s Orders. 

Despite the fact that the parties are in agreement that the case should be dismissed, the

parties remain at odds as to whether the case should be dismissed with or without prejudice.

Case 2:07-cv-00934-SMM Document 29 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Defendant submits that the dismissal should be with prejudice, contending that dismissal

would serve the interests of justice and would promote judicial efficiency, while Plaintiff

motions for dismissal without prejudice, as well as without explanation.

Rule 16(f) and Rule 41(b) provide ample authority for dismissing a case when, as

here, a plaintiff does not participate in a pretrial conference or fails to prosecute a case.

Under Rule 16(f), the Court, upon motion or the judge’s own initiative, may impose

appropriate sanctions “[i]f a party or party’s attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial

order” or “a party or party’s attorney fails to participate in good faith” in a scheduling

conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). The sanctions available under Rule 16(f) include those

provided in Rule 37(b)(2)(C), which allows for “dismissing the action or proceeding or any

part thereof.” Id. Likewise, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action under Rule

41(b) “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of

court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

In determining whether to impose sanctions under either of the aforementioned

rules, the Court considers the following factors: (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 defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir.

1988); Thompson v. The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

(9th Cir. 1986).

The Court finds that since the commencement of this case, Plaintiff has made a less

than genuine effort to prosecute this case. After explicit direction from the Court (Doc. 12),

Plaintiff continued to ignore the mandates of the Federal and Local Rules, and in response

to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed two separate documents in apparent

opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, neither of which comported with the Local or

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and neither of which comported with the Court’s previous

Case 2:07-cv-00934-SMM Document 29 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 4
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

The Court notes that it essentially took Plaintiff filing a Motion for Summary

Disposition, a Notice of Preparedness for a Rule 16, and two Motions to Dismiss, for this

case to proceed.

- 3 -

warning. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to notify the Court of preparedness for a Rule 16

Conference, and instead, the Defendant did so, during which time Defendant attempted to

contact Plaintiff in order to comply with the Court’s Order regarding filing a Proposed Case

Management Plan. Plaintiff failed to make contact with Defendant and failed to respond to

contact made by Defendant regarding the Rule 16 Conference. It wasn’t until Defendant

filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute wherein Defendant illustrated the

numerous attempts made to communicate with Plaintiff regarding the case and the impending

Rule 16 Conference, that Plaintiff responded by filing his own Motion to Dismiss.1

 The

Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and this Court’s

need to manage its docket are both served by dismissing this case with prejudice. 

Moreover, the Court finds that the risk of prejudice to the Defendant far outweighs

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Id. Plaintiff is a physician

residing in Arizona, whereas Defendant was previously a housewife, unemployed outside of

the house, and is now living in Florida, supporting the parties’ two children, working, and

attending school. Given the economic disparity, the inconvenience of the forum to the

Defendant, as well as the fact that Plaintiff has Arizona counsel that has agreed to represent

her in this case pro bono, but is not guaranteed to find counsel to do so again in the future if

Plaintiff were permitted to re-file in another jurisdiction, a dismissal with prejudice is

appropriate in light of the possibility that plaintiff would seek to re-file the action elsewhere.

The Court has had this case on its docket for nearly a year and has already issued a

detailed, substantive order disposing of the majority of the case against Defendant. In light

of the Court’s familiarity with the action and the parties, it would be inefficient and a waste

Case 2:07-cv-00934-SMM Document 29 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

of scarce judicial resources to allow for the possibility of Plaintiff re-filing the case before

a new judge in another court.

Finally, as reflected in the docket, Plaintiff’s failure to participate in this case limits

the effectiveness of less drastic sanctions. See DeRienzo v. Yavapai County, No. CIV-05-

2088-PCT-SMM, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77129, at *6 (D. Ariz. Oct. 20, 2006) (“With

respect to the availability of less drastic alternatives, there is no sanction the Court could

impose that would compel Plaintiff to participate in the litigation.”).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant Silvia A. Mitchell's Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. 22).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING in part and DENYING in part

Plaintiff James M. Mitchell’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24). It is granted insofar as the case

is dismissed, it is denied insofar as it is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00934-SMM Document 29 Filed 01/24/08 Page 4 of 4