Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00095-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Previously, the parties notified the Court that the action was resolved. (Doc. 64) Accordingly, 

the Court ordered the parties to file their request for dismissal. (Doc. 66) Because Plaintiffs have failed 

to comply with the Court’s orders, it is recommended that the action be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

I. Relevant Background

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on January 22, 2014. (Doc. 1) On March 7, 

2016, Defendants filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. 64) To allow sufficient time for the settlement 

agreement to be finalized in writing, the Court ordered the parties to file a request for dismissal no later 

than April 15, 2016. (Doc. 66) However, the parties failed to comply with the Court’s order. 

On May 9, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause to the parties and counsel as to why 

sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 67) The 

parties were directed to respond within fourteen days, and cautioned that “[f]ailure to comply with this 

order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of the action or an order striking 

PETER GRAFF, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF TEHACHAPI, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00095 - LJO- JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFFS’

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDERS

Case 1:14-cv-00095-LJO-JLT Document 70 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 4
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

the answer and entering default.” (Doc. 67 at 1, emphasis omitted) Defendants filed a timely response 

to the order on May 23, 2016, supported by the declaration of counsel, Jesse Maddox. (Docs. 68, 68-1) 

Mr. Maddox reports that in November 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Sam Wells informed him that 

the parties would resolve the case, and he believed they “would have a deal. (Doc. 68-1 at 1-2, ¶¶3, 6) 

After Mr. Wells “explained the terms to which his clients would agree,” Mr. Maddox prepared a draft 

settlement agreement and provided it to Mr. Wells on January 11, 2016. (Id. at 2, ¶ 10) He again 

provided the drafts on February 3, 2016. (Id. at 3, ¶ 12) According to Mr. Maddox, Plaintiffs’ counsel 

“emailed his proposed changes to the draft settlement agreement” and informed the Court that the case 

would settle. (Id., ¶¶ 14-15) Mr. Wells then informed Mr. Maddox that he wanted to revise the 

agreement, and seek approval from his client. (Id. at 4, ¶¶ 19, 21) Plaintiffs provided the “new 

proposed settlement language” on March 3, 2016. (Id., ¶ 22) Defendants agreed to the changes, and 

Mr. Maddox emailed the settlement agreement to Mr. Wells for Plaintiffs to execute the document on 

March 8, 2016. (Id., ¶ 23) 

Mr. Maddox reports that he contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel on numerous occasions between 

March and May 2016, inquiring about the status of the settlement agreement. (Doc. 68-1 at 5-6, ¶¶ 24-

33) Mr. Maddox asserts he has not received a response from Mr. Wells since April 19, 2016, or 

received the executed agreement. (Id. at 6, ¶ 34) 

Plaintiffs did not respond to the Court’s order to show cause, and did not refute Mr. Maddox’s 

summary of the events related to execution of the settlement agreement. 

II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent 

power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including 

dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986). 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, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment 

Case 1:14-cv-00095-LJO-JLT Document 70 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 4
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

of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 

failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 

III. Discussion and Analysis

To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court 

order, 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 drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 

Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s 

interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 

managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Judges in the Eastern District 

of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court cannot, and will not hold, this 

action in abeyance given Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the deadlines set forth by the Court and 

failure to prosecute. The risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See 

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Significantly, the Ninth Circuit determined a court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the 

court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the requirement that less drastic sanctions be considered. 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 131; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “a 

plaintiff can hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to willful violation of a 

[court] order.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 133. Here, Plaintiffs were warned that failure to comply with the 

Court’s order to show cause “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of 

the action....” (Doc. 67 at 1, emphasis in original). Thus, Plaintiffs received adequate warning that 

dismissal would result from their noncompliance with the Court’s order, which satisfies the Court’s 

Case 1:14-cv-00095-LJO-JLT Document 70 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 4
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

obligation to consider lesser sanctions. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Given these facts, the policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. 

IV. Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiffs failed to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the Court’s orders dated March 9, 

2016 (Doc. 66) and May 9, 2016 (Doc. 67). Consequently, Plaintiffs also failed to continue the 

prosecution of this action. 

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. This action be DISMISSED with prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close the action.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00095-LJO-JLT Document 70 Filed 05/24/16 Page 4 of 4