Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02077/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02077-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIL CROSTHWAIT, JOHN BONILLA et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

AVOCA TRUCKING & EXCAVATING, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C04-2077 MEJ

REASSIGNMENT TO THE U.S.

DISTRICT COURTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

INTRODUCTION

The above captioned matter was scheduled for an Order to Show Case before Magistrate

Judge Maria-Elena James on November 10, 2005. The parties failed to appear for the hearing. 

Given the circumstances of the case, the Court hereby reassigns the matter with a report and

recommendation.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs commenced this action on May 26, 2004. On July 19, 2004, Plaintiffs requested an

Entry of Default by the Clerk, which was subsequently granted on July 29, 2004. On September 16,

2004, Plaintiffs moved for an Ex Parte Application to remove the case management conference off

the calendar in light of the Entry of Default. In support of the Ex Parte Application, Plaintiffs'

counsel represented that a Motion for Entry of Default Judgement would be filed within "sixty days"

of October 2004. Plaintiffs' request was granted. The Court removed the above-captioned matter
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

from the calendar and ORDERED Plaintiff to file the Motion for Entry of Default Judgement within

"sixty days" of the Court's Order. 

On September 22, 2005, this Court scheduled an Order to Show Cause hearing on November

10, 2005, due to Plaintiffs' failure to submit a Motion for Entry of Default Judgement or provide an

update as to the status of the case. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs failed to appear to the Order to Show Cause hearing scheduled on November 10,

2005. Since Plaintiffs have taken no action in this matter since September 20, 2004, this Court

recommends that the matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b), which provides:

For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of

court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or any claim against the

defendant. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal

under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under

Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits. 

While Rule 41(b) allows a defendant to move for dismissal for failure to prosecute, the Rule

does not abrogate the power of a district court to dismiss a case on its own motion: "The authority

of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 'inherent

power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage

their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash

Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962). 

Here, Plaintiffs have taken no action in their case since requesting the Court to take the

matter off calendar in light of the Entry of Default. The Court has given Plaintiffs more than ample

time to file the Motion for Default Judgement. Furthermore, this Court gave Plaintiffs a second

opportunity to file a Motion for Default Judgement by scheduling an Order to Show Cause hearing.

Plaintiffs have been given a fair opportunity to file a Motion for Default Judgement and to explain

why this requirement has not been met. Plaintiffs' failure to file a Motion for Default Judgement in

conjunction with their failure to appear, amounts to a failure prosecute warranting dismissal. 
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that the District Court

dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, a party may serve and file objections to this Report and

Recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy of said report.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: November 14, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge