Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04066/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

JOSEPH C. KRIVEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

GORDON & REES LLP; 30 DOES, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-4066 SBA 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Docket 10 

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant Gordon & Rees LLP’s Motion 

to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. No opposition to the motion 

has been filed by Plaintiff. Having read and considered the papers submitted in connection 

with this matter, and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the 

reasons set forth below. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), the Court 

adjudicates the instant motion without oral argument. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, the law firm Gordon & Rees LLP. On 

September 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed a pro se form complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 for gender, age and disability discrimination against Defendant, along with a 

request to proceed in forma pauperis. The case originally was assigned to a Magistrate Judge 

of this Court, but was subsequently reassigned to this Court. On January 21, 2010, the Court 

granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered service of the Complaint 

upon Defendant. 

Case 4:09-cv-04066-SBA Document 21 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

On February 25, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which it noticed for hearing 

on April 20, 2010. Under Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was due by 

March 30, 2010. To date, however, Plaintiff has not filed any response to the motion. In 

addition, he has refused Defendant’s repeated efforts to meet and confer in the preparation of a 

Joint Case Management (“CMC”) Statement in anticipation of the CMC, which is also 

scheduled for April 20, 2010. 

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the Court to dismiss an action where 

plaintiff has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s local rules 

or any court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to this 

authority, the Ninth Circuit has held that the failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss 

in contravention of the local rules is grounds for granting the motion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In exercising its discretion to dismiss an action for 

failing to comply with a district court’s local rules or orders, the court is “required to weigh 

several 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.’” 

Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The threshold question is whether any court rules or orders were violated. Here, the 

record confirms that Plaintiff violated Local Rule 7-3 by failing to file any response to the 

pending motion to dismiss by March 30, 2010. In addition, Plaintiff failed to comply with the 

Court’s Order directing him to meet and confer with Defendant and to submit a joint CMC 

statement. Given these violations, the Court next turns to the question of whether dismissal is 

warranted. 

The first and second factors both favor dismissal. Plaintiff’s repeated failures to 

comport with Court’s filing requirements undermine the Court’s ability to expedite the 

resolution of the action. Such non-compliance inherently delays resolution of the case and 

insures to the detriment of the public. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 

Case 4:09-cv-04066-SBA Document 21 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

2002) (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine 

noncompliance of litigants[.]”); Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 

1999) (recognizing court’s need to control its own docket); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 

(non-compliance with a court’s order diverts “valuable time that [the court] could have devoted 

to other major and serious criminal and civil cases on its docket.”). 

 The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendant, is related to the strength of the 

plaintiff’s excuse for the default, if any. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Here, Plaintiff has 

offered no “excuse” for his non-compliance, nor is any apparent from the record. Since the 

filing of the motion to dismiss, the Court has received no submissions from Plaintiff regarding 

Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff simply has failed to provide any reason whatsoever for his 

failure to comply with the Court’s Orders and none is apparent from the record. These facts 

also weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991; Ghazali, 46 F.3d. at 

54. 

 The fourth factor favoring disposition of cases on the merits, by definition, weighs 

against dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of cases on 

the merits. Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”) 

 Finally, the Court has considered less drastic alternatives to dismissal. The Court’s 

Standing Orders warn that as a consequence of a party’s failure to oppose a motion, the Court 

would construe such inaction as a consent to the granting of the motion. Though a warning is 

not required, “a district court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will 

result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of [less drastic sanctions]’ requirement.” 

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We conclude 

that because Brydges was warned of the consequence of his failure to respond to the appellees’ 

summary judgment motion, the district court did not err by deeming his failure to respond a 

Case 4:09-cv-04066-SBA Document 21 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

consent to the motion for summary judgment.”).1 Weighing the relevant factors, the Court 

exercises its discretion and grants the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The instant action is dismissed 

with prejudice. 

2. This Order terminates Docket No. 10. The Clerk shall close the file and 

terminate any pending matters. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 13, 2010 ____________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

 1 “[A]n express warning regarding the possibility of dismissal is [not] a prerequisite to a 

Rule 41(b) dismissal when dismissal follows a noticed motion under Rule 41(b).” In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Case 4:09-cv-04066-SBA Document 21 Filed 04/13/10 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KRIVAN et al, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

GORDON & REES LLP et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-04066 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on April 13, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Joseph C. Krivan 

P.O. Box 330452 

San Francisco, CA 94133-0452 

Dated: April 13, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-04066-SBA Document 21 Filed 04/13/10 Page 5 of 5