Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06271/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06271-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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 

CARL ALEXANDER WESCOTT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ERIC REISNER, 

 Defendant. 

Case No: C 17-06271 SBA 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(B)

Plaintiff Carl Wescott (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint for breach 

of contract and other related causes of action against Defendant Eric Reisner (“Defendant”) 

on October 30, 2017. Dkt. 1.1 Defendant, also proceeding pro se, filed an Answer on 

January 29, 2018. Dkt. 13. 

On or about August 16, 2018, Judge Edward M. Chen—to whom the action was 

then assigned—ordered the parties to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26 within 30 days and to participate in a settlement conference within 90 

days. Dkt. 50. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore for 

settlement, and a settlement conference was scheduled for November 16, 2018, at 11:00 

a.m. Dkt. 55. Magistrate Judge Westmore’s settlement conference order required, among 

other things, that each party prepare and submit a settlement conference statement at least 

10 calendar days prior to the conference (i.e., no later than November 6, 2018). Id. at 3. 

 1 The Complaint also named Kerry Condon as a defendant; however, she was 

dismissed from the action on June 1, 2018. See Dkt. 44. 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 103 Filed 08/16/19 Page 1 of 7
- 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 November 15, 2018, Magistrate Judge Westmore issued an order terminating the 

settlement conference. Dkt. 59. Magistrate Judge Westmore stated that Plaintiff had failed 

to submit a settlement conference statement. Id. at 1. Additionally, when the Court 

attempted to contact Plaintiff by telephone, which it did at least ten times, the Court was 

directed to a message indicating that the user’s mailbox was full. Id. Because Plaintiff had 

not submitted a settlement conference statement as ordered, and because he had provided a 

telephone number that “effectively render[ed] him unreachable,” Magistrate Judge 

Westmore canceled the settlement conference. Id. at 2. She also ordered Plaintiff to 

provide an updated telephone number where he could be reached and to contact the Court 

to reschedule the settlement conference. Id. It appears Plaintiff made no subsequent 

attempt to schedule another conference. 

On November 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte—to whom the 

action had been reassigned—issued a Case Management and Pretrial Order pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, setting a pretrial schedule. Dkt. 62. Among other 

things, the Order provides a fact discovery cutoff of May 14, 2019, and specifically 

instructs the parties to supplement and/or correct their Rule 26 disclosures on an ongoing 

basis and at least 28 days before the fact discovery cutoff date. Id. ¶¶ 2.a. & d. The Order 

also sets a deadline to file dispositive motions by July 2, 2019, with a pretrial conference on 

September 24, 2019, and trial set to begin on October 15, 2019. Id. ¶¶ 1.a., 3 & 5.a. 

On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed his first motion for default judgment. Dkt. 64. 

Magistrate Judge Laporte denied the motion on January 23, 2019. Dkt. 69. Shortly 

thereafter, on February 26, 2019, Magistrate Judge Laporte held a further case management 

conference. Dkt. 76. At that time, Defendant stated that he had yet to receive from 

Plaintiff a copy of the final, signed contract underlying the dispute. Id. Magistrate Judge 

Laporte ordered Plaintiff to provide “all documents, especially those related to breach of 

contract” to Defendant by March 15, 2019. Id. That deadline was also memorialized in a 

written order. Dkt. 77. Magistrate Judge Laporte also re-referred the parties to Magistrate 

Judge Westmore to conduct a settlement conference. Dkt. 76. 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 103 Filed 08/16/19 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

The following day, February 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second motion for default 

judgment. Dkt. 80. Defendant filed a response to the motion on April 1, 2019. Dkt. 88. In 

it, Defendant stated that Plaintiff still had not provided the documents that Magistrate Judge 

Laporte ordered him to provide by March 15, 2019. Id. 

On April 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Laporte held a hearing on Plaintiff’s second 

motion for default judgment, which she denied. Dkt. 96.2 At the hearing, Magistrate Judge 

Laporte again ordered the parties to participate in a settlement conference before Magistrate 

Judge Westmore. Dkt. 94. Magistrate Judge Laporte also admonished Plaintiff that the 

action could be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or continued noncompliance with the 

Court’s orders. See Dkt. 96. Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Westmore scheduled a presettlement telephonic conference for June 13, 2019 at 2:15 p.m. Dkt. 97. Defendant 

appeared for the telephonic conference; Plaintiff did not. Dkt. 99. 

On August 5, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Action Should 

Not Be Dismissed Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“OSC”). Dkt. 102. 

The Court noted that Plaintiff has violated and continues to violate both Judge Chen’s order 

requiring the parties to participate in a settlement conference within 90 days of August 16, 

2018 and Judge Laporte’s recent orders directing the parties to participate in a settlement 

conference forthwith. Id. at 3-4. He also violated Judge Westmore’s settlement conference 

orders by failing to file a statement in advance of the conference scheduled in November 

2018 (causing the conference to be vacated) and failing to appear for the conference 

scheduled in June 2019. Id. The Court observed that, as a result of Plaintiff’s conduct, the 

parties have yet to complete their selected Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) 

process, despite the fact that the action is nearly two years old and the parties were first 

ordered to participate in a settlement conference in August of last year. Id.3 

 2 In denying the motion, Magistrate Judge Laporte noted that Defendant has “fully 

participated” in the case since the denial of the first motion for default judgment. Dkt. 95. 

3 The OSC stated that Judge Chen first directed the parties to participate in a 

settlement conference nearly two years ago. This is an error. Rather, the action was filed 

nearly two years ago, and Judge Chen issued his order regarding settlement one year ago. 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 103 Filed 08/16/19 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

The Court also observed that Plaintiff has done little to advance the action toward 

trial or some other final resolution. Id. at 4 (citing Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche 

Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is a well established rule that the 

duty to move a case is on the plaintiff and not on the defendant or the court.”)). Although 

Plaintiff provided some initial disclosures, he had not, as of April 1, 2019 (and possibly to 

the present day), provided Defendant a copy of the contract upon which the action is based. 

Id. This is in violation of: (1) Judge Chen’s order in August 2018 requiring the parties to 

exchange their Rule 26 disclosures within 30 days; (2) the Case Management and Pretrial 

Order requiring the parties to supplement and/or correct their disclosures on an ongoing 

basis and at least 28 days before the fact discovery cutoff; and (3) Magistrate Judge 

Laporte’s order in February 2019 requiring Plaintiff to provide a copy of the contract by 

March 15, 2019. Id. Additionally, although the discovery and dispositive motion cutoffs 

have passed, it appears that no meaningful discovery has been completed and no dispositive 

motion (e.g., a motion for summary judgment) has been filed. Id.4

In view of the foregoing, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action 

should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s orders 

requiring him to (1) participate in a settlement conference and (2) provide Defendant with 

documents related to his breach of contract claim, including a copy of the contract. Id. at 

5.5 Plaintiff’s written response was to be filed within ten days of the date the OSC was 

filed, i.e., by August 15, 2019. Id. The Court warned: “FAILURE TO FULLY 

COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO 

DISMISS THE ACTION, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.” Id. Despite the Court’s 

admonition, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the OSC. 

 4 As noted in the OSC, the only action Plaintiff has taken in the case is the filing of 

two unsuccessful—and rather baseless—motions for default judgment. OSC at 4-5. 

5 The Court also ordered Plaintiff to set forth the nature of the case, its present status 

(including the status of discovery), and the reason additional action has not been taken to 

bring it to a final resolution (including why no dispositive motion has been filed and 

whether he anticipates filing a motion to modify the pretrial schedule). 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 103 Filed 08/16/19 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

A district court may dismiss an action, sua sponte, if the plaintiff fails to prosecute 

or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b); see also Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 

2005); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to 

dismiss an action under Rule 41(b), the Court must weigh: (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 alternatives. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. 

The Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 

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

always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 

This factor more strongly favors dismissal in the instant case because: (1) the action has 

been pending for nearly two years; (2) Plaintiff has failed to advance the action and has 

allowed many pretrial deadlines to pass without action; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to 

participate in the Court’s ADR program, as ordered. ADR is supposed to occur early in the 

action and is intended to foster an expeditious resolution. See ADR L.R. 1-2(a) (noting that 

ADR helps provide the parties access to evidence and clarity as to the strength or weakness 

of the case). ADR would be particularly helpful here, given that the parties are proceeding 

pro se and basic discovery (such as Plaintiff’s production of the contract upon which the 

action is based) has not been completed. By failing to participate in a settlement 

conference, Plaintiff has impeded the progress of the action beyond even the earliest stages. 

The second factor also militates in favor of dismissal. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 

291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket 

without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants[.]”); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1261 (case that “dragged on for over a year and half” before it was dismissed for failure 

to comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint diverted “valuable time that 

[the court] could have devoted to other major and serious criminal and civil cases on its 

docket”). As noted in the OSC, Plaintiff has unduly wasted Judge Westmore’s time by 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 103 Filed 08/16/19 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

twice failing to participate in scheduled settlement conferences. He has also wasted the 

time of the other judges presiding over the action by requiring a disproportionate degree of 

case management and intervention for a case that he has failed to prosecute diligently. 

The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, generally requires a showing 

that “plaintiff’s actions impaired defendant’s ability to proceed to trial or threatened to 

interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (noting that 

limited delays and the prejudice attendant to the pendency of an action do not warrant 

dismissal, provided the prejudice is not compounded by “unreasonable” delays). At the 

same time, the Ninth Circuit has “related the risk of prejudice to the plaintiff’s reason for 

defaulting.” Id. (noting that “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that 

witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale”). Here, Plaintiff has 

offered no explanation for his failure to comply with the Court’s orders and none is any 

apparent from the record. In fact, as noted in the OSC, the Court is left with the impression 

that Plaintiff seeks to avoid a settlement conference or any other test of the merits of his 

action. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. See id. 

Regarding the fourth factor, the Court has already employed less drastic alternatives 

to dismissal, to no avail. The Court afforded Plaintiff a full year and several opportunities 

to participate in a settlement conference. Moreover, the Court has given Plaintiff at least 

two prior warnings. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“a district court’s warning to a party that 

his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of 

alternatives’ requirement”). In April 2019, Magistrate Judge Laporte admonished Plaintiff 

that the action could be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or continued noncompliance 

with Court orders. Plaintiff thereafter failed to appear for the pre-settlement conference. 

The Court also warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond to the OSC would result in the 

dismissal of the action without further notice. He nonetheless failed to respond to the OSC. 

The final factor, which favors disposition of cases on the merits, by definition, 

weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. The Court notes, however, that 

disposition of the case on the merits is impossible without Plaintiff’s participation. Plaintiff 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 103 Filed 08/16/19 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

has twice absented himself from scheduled settlement conferences, allowed the discovery 

and dispositive motion cutoffs to pass, neglected to seek a modification of the pretrial 

schedule to extend these critical deadlines, failed to produce the contract that forms the 

basis of the action, and failed to respond to the OSC. The Court cannot litigate Plaintiff’s 

action for him and is disinclined to waste more judicial resources by proceeding to trial on a 

case that is ill-prepared and has yet to be submitted to a settlement conference. See 

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. Of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 932 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(affirming dismissal of action pursuant to Rule 41(b) where the plaintiff was consistently 

unprepared to proceed with the pretrial conference and trial). 

 In sum, the Court concludes that four of the five relevant factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is DISMISSED in its entirety. 

For the reasons stated above, the Court certifies that any appeal taken from this decision 

would not be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Clerk shall 

close the file and terminate all pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 16, 2019 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 4:17-cv-06271-SBA Document 103 Filed 08/16/19 Page 7 of 7