Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03734/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03734-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YI LIU,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

(USPS), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03734-JD 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 15

On July 17, 2015, pro se plaintiff Yi Liu (dba) Technext020 filed a small claims complaint 

against the “United States Postal Service (USPS) (Agent: Jason Kirrane).” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2. The 

case was removed to this Court on August 17, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. On August 24, 2015, the United 

States and the United States Postal Service filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No. 8. 

Because Ms. Liu did not file any opposition to defendants’ motion (within the time permitted 

under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or otherwise), the Court ordered Ms. Liu to show cause by October 

26, 2015, why the motion to dismiss should not be granted and the case dismissed for failure to 

prosecute.

The October 26 deadline has come and gone without a response. The Court therefore 

dismisses the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides the Court with authority to dismiss a case 

for failure to prosecute or to comply with any of its orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a claim for 

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following 

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 

Case 3:15-cv-03734-JD Document 16 Filed 10/30/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of 

less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” 

See Espinosa v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. C 10-04464 SBA, 2011 WL 334209, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 31, 2011) (citing Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

Application of these factors here weighs in favor of dismissal. Liu has failed to file a 

response to defendants’ motion to dismiss as required by the Local Rules and by court order, 

despite having been warned that the case might be dismissed as a result for failure to prosecute. 

See Dkt. No. 15. 

With respect to the first factor, “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation always favors dismissal.” Espinosa, 2011 WL 334209, at *1 (citing Yourish v. Cal. 

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). For the second factor, the Court must be able to 

manage its docket “without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291 

F.3d at 642; 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.”). For the third factor, having filed nothing at all since the case was removed, 

Liu has offered no explanation for her failure to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss or the 

Court’s order to show cause. This weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. See Espinosa, 2011 WL 

334209, at *2. With respect to the fourth factor, the Court already issued an Order to Show Cause, 

which provided Liu with additional notice of the pending motion to dismiss, as well as additional 

time to respond to the merits of that motion. See Dkt. No. 15. The Court’s issuance of the Order 

to Show Cause satisfies the consideration of less drastic sanctions requirement. See Ferdik, 963 

F.2d at 1262. 

Although the fifth factor -- the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits --

might weigh against dismissal, on its own, the cumulative weight of the other factors overrides it.

See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (finding district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 

case where three of the five factors weighed in favor of dismissal).

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-03734-JD Document 16 Filed 10/30/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

Because four of the five relevant factors weigh in favor of granting defendants’ unopposed 

motion to dismiss, the Court grants that motion and dismisses this case in its entirety with 

prejudice. The clerk will enter judgment and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03734-JD Document 16 Filed 10/30/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YI LIU,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

(USPS), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03734-JD 

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 October 30, 2015, 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.

Yi Liu

144 Crestwood Avenue

Apt 1

Daly City, CA 94015 

Dated: October 30, 2015

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:15-cv-03734-JD Document 16 Filed 10/30/15 Page 4 of 4