Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01584/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01584-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

Cassie D. Brittman, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United Student Aid Funds, Inc., et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1584-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On October 9, 2008, the Court issued an order setting a Rule 16 case management

conference. Dkt. #10. The order required the parties to meet and confer about a litigation

schedule and to file a proposed case management plan in advance of the case management

conference, which was scheduled for November 20, 2008. The order further required that

Plaintiff initiate communications about the preparation of a case management plan. Id. 

On November 14, 2008, Defendants filed a Proposed Case Management Plan.

Dkt. #12. The plan explained that Defendants had attempted to communicate with Plaintiff

on two occasions, through certified mail and hand delivery, but had received no response.

Plaintiff did not initiate communications concerning the case management plan, nor did she

respond to Defendants’ attempts to confer concerning the plan. The case management

conference was held as scheduled on November 20, 2008. Counsel for Defendants appeared,

but Plaintiff did not appear. 

The Court’s Case Management Order directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint

by January 16, 2009, and to produce an initial disclosure statement by February 13, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01584-DGC Document 28 Filed 05/06/09 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 -

Dkt. #18. Plaintiff missed both deadlines. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, noting

that Plaintiff failed to respond to two letters concerning her failure to obey the Court’s order.

Dkt. #23. 

As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action, the Court issued an Order to

Show Cause which required Plaintiff to appear on April 30, 2009, and show cause why this

case should not be dismissed. The order warned that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to appear at the

hearing, this case will be dismissed.” Dkt. # 24. The order was mailed to both of the

addresses Plaintiff has provided to the Court. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing.

Because Plaintiff had previously asserted that she had been out of the Country on

active military duty during a portion of this case, the Court directed defense counsel to

confirm that she is not currently on active military duty. Defense counsel has now filed an

affidavit attaching a certificate from the United States Department of Defense Manpower

Data Center. Dkt. #25. The certificate states that the Department has no information

suggesting that Plaintiff is on active military duty at this time.

The Ninth Circuit has developed “a five-part ‘test’ to determine whether a dismissal

sanction is just: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation; (2) the

court’s need to manage its docket; (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.’” Valley Engineers, Inc. v. Electric Engineering Co., 158 F.3d 1051,

1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also

Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Factor 5 “involves

consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly discussed alternative sanctions,

whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of

dismissal.” Valley Engineers, 158 F.3d at 1057. 

Considering this five-factor test, the Court concludes that dismissal is an appropriate

sanction in this case. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the

Court’s need to manage its docket require action when a plaintiff refuses to prosecute a case.

In addition, Defendants will be subject to prejudice if a sanction of dismissal is not imposed.

Case 2:08-cv-01584-DGC Document 28 Filed 05/06/09 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 -

Defendants are unable to move forward with their defense of this case, to obtain relevant

discovery, or even to engage in settlement discussions. Dkt. # 28. Finally, the Court has

considered less drastic sanctions, but none is apparent. The Court has given Plaintiff several

opportunities to comply with its orders, and has explained to her in person that she was

obligated to comply. Dkt. #16. And yet Plaintiff will not communicate with defense

counsel, will not provide needed discovery, and refuses to appear at court hearings. Plaintiff

was warned that her failure to appear would result in dismissal. Dkt. #24. The only possible

resolution of this problem is to dismiss Plaintiff’s case. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this case is

dismissed.

2. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2009.

cc: Cassie Brittman

1025 N. 2nd Avenue, No. 128B

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Cassie Brittman

3601 E. McDowell Rd., No. 3143

Phoenix, AZ 85008

Case 2:08-cv-01584-DGC Document 28 Filed 05/06/09 Page 3 of 3