Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01407/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01407-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 29:2601 FMLA: Family and Medical Leave Act (Findings and Purposes)

---

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 

Jessica Comacho, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

National Mentor Health Care, LLC, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 16-1407-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, explaining that Plaintiff has 

failed to communicate with them since before this case was filed. Doc. 10. In response, 

the Court issued an order setting a hearing on the motion and specifically ordering 

Plaintiff to be present at the hearing. Doc. 11. Plaintiff failed to appear despite diligent 

efforts by her counsel to inform her of the hearing. These efforts, as described by counsel 

at the hearing, included email, written mail, and telephone calls, all to no avail. 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or 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.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has inherent 

power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of 

Rule 41(b) appears to require a motion. In appropriate cases, a court may dismiss a 

complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or a hearing. Id. at 633. 

Case 2:16-cv-01407-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

In determining whether dismissal is warranted, the Court must weigh five 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 defendants; (4) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.” Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the first, 

second, and third factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff’s attorneys advised the Court that she 

has failed to communicate with them for the last eight or nine months, despite repeated 

efforts by counsel to reach her. Her last communication occurred months before the 

complaint was filed – counsel filed this action to preserve her claim from the statute of 

limitations. Plaintiff has steadfastly failed to communicate with counsel even after the 

complaint was filed, despite their repeated attempts to reach her. As a result, the time for 

serving the complaint has passed and no other activity has occurred. 

The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires 

the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Without Plaintiff’s 

willingness to communicate with her attorneys, however, little can be done to move this 

case forward. The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. 

Rule 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication 

on the merits “[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies.” As a 

somewhat less drastic result, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 

 IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 7th day of September, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01407-DGC Document 13 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 2