Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

SQUIRE, SANDERS &

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(Oakland Division) 

PAUL VELIZ, et al, On behalf of 

Themselves and All Others Similarly 

Situated. 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CINTAS CORPORATION, an Ohio 

corporation; PLAN ADMINISTRATOR 

for the Cintas Partners’ Plan; and 

DOES 1-25, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-03-01180 (SBA) 

[E-FILING] 

CLASS ACTION 

ORDER GRANTING CINTAS 

CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE 

Defendant Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”) has moved this Court to dismiss certain plaintiffs 

for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Cintas’ counsel has confirmed that the 

Court’s docket reflects that no opposition to this motion has been filed. Cintas’ counsel further 

confirmed that no paper related to this motion has been received by Cintas’ counsel. 

Having considered the papers presented, and the argument of counsel, for the reasons 

more fully set forth herein, the Court hereby GRANTS Cintas’ Motion. 

A. RELIEF REQUESTED BY CINTAS’ MOTION

Cintas requests that the Court dismiss the claims of the following individuals pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) which authorizes dismissal for failure of a plaintiff to prosecute or comply 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of this Court: 

 

Todd Bates 

Mark Bernard 

Leon Bipat 

Danny R. Ellisor 

Jim Garman 

Laureano Guajardo, Sr. 

Clarence Holloway 

Richard Huber 

Nathan A. Kuethe 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 656 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & 

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3492 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

Ewell Farley Lester, Jr. 

Edgar A. Lugo II 

Richard Dean Massey 

Jeffrey Scott Mayton 

Garland McAnally III 

Linn Allen Minnick 

Steven Michael Mullis 

Lind Murray 

Gary T. Newvine 

Brandi Ott 

Kevin Roam 

Ronald Lynne Smith 

William Gregory Thrash 

Ryan Urdiales 

Pedro Velazquez 

Brian Whitman 

Gary Lynn Wiant 

B. SHORT STATEMENT OF RATIONALE OF THE DECISION AND CITATIONS TO 

AUTHORITY AS TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED

1. Introduction and Legal Standard

Dismissal for failure to prosecute is governed by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Rule 41(b) provides, in pertinent part: 

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 of 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 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. 

District Courts have both inherent and express authority to dismiss a case for failure to 

prosecute when a case is not pursued with “reasonable diligence.” See Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 

272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992); Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 

1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). In 

determining whether a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) is warranted, this Court is to consider 

five factors: 

(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 656 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & 

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3492 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

(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 alternatives. 

Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The failure to diligently prosecute a case “is sufficient by ‘itself to justify a dismissal, 

even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant from the failure.’” 

Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1452 (9th Cir. 1994), quoting Anderson, 542 

F.2d at 524. 

2. The Five-Factor Test is Met in This Instance.

Each of the individuals subject to this Motion has had four extensions of time in which to 

answer Cintas’ discovery requests (three stipulated to by Cintas and another granted by the 

Court), amounting to an extension of well over six months. Each received a Facilitated Notice 

from this Court indicating that they could be called upon, as opt-in Plaintiffs in this case, to 

provide written discovery or testimony. And each has ignored what Plaintiffs’ former counsel has 

sworn are repeated and laborious attempts by their own counsel to contact them, as detailed in 

their counsel’s Declaration in support of their motion to withdraw. 

As a result, all five of the relevant factors are met. The public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation will be served in this case by clearing unnecessary, uninterested, and 

nonparticipating persons from the slate of opt-in plaintiffs in this case and allowing the parties to 

narrow the issues to those which are relevant to responsive Plaintiffs; it will also avoid additional 

expenditures of time and money by all parties. This Court will be able to more effectively 

manage its docket, which will not be cluttered with motions and countermotions potentially 

relevant only to Plaintiffs who do not intend to participate. 

If the nonresponsive Plaintiffs are not removed from the docket, it is plain that Cintas will 

suffer serious prejudice merely from their presence in the case, as it will be required to litigate 

individualized aspects of their claims while at the same time being denied the possibility of 

discovery from them. Finally, there do not appear to be any less drastic alternatives; no apparent 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 656 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & 

DEMPSEY L.L.P. One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3492 

REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CINTAS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - CASE NO. 03-01180 (SBA)

sanction other than dismissal could even reach these Plaintiffs or otherwise prod them to comply 

with their responsibility to diligently prosecute their case. In such a case, where the Plaintiffs 

have essentially opted out of the suit and refused to cooperate, it is apparent that the general 

preference for resolving claims on their merits is not undermined. 

In short, there can be no doubt that these Plaintiffs have no intention of even participating 

in this case, much less in prosecuting it. No further purpose can be served by allowing them to 

remain litigants. Accordingly, the Court shall dismiss their claims, with prejudice.

C. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Cintas’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute is GRANTED in its 

entirety as to the individuals listed above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 6/6/07 ________________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 656 Filed 06/07/07 Page 4 of 4