Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01893/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01893-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy Appeal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL DEN BESTE,

Apellant,

v.

PATRICK BULMER ALSO KNOWN AS

CALIFORNIA RECEIVERSHIP 

SERVICES,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01893-TLN

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

The Court has issued numerous orders directing Appellant Paul Beste (“Appellant”) to 

comply with the local rules governing the Eastern District of California as well as this Court’s 

orders. (See ECF Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 24.) On April 16, 2014, the Court ordered Appellant to file 

his opening brief within twenty-one (21) days. (Order, ECF No. 18.) Appellant failed to comply. 

Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause on June 23, 2014, as to why Appellant had 

not adhered to the Court’s order. (Min. Oder, ECF No. 22.) On July, 7, 2014, Appellant 

responded and, in turn, the Court afforded Appellant one last opportunity to comply. Thus, on 

July 11, 2014, this Court ordered Appellant to file his case brief with the District Court within 

fourteen (14) days. In its Order, the Court warned Appellant that should he once again fail to file 

his brief that this matter would be dismissed. The time for compliance has come and gone and 

the Court is still not in receipt of Appellant’s case brief. 

Case 2:13-cv-01893-TLN Document 25 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 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

2

“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because

of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

629 (1962). The Ninth Circuit has set forth five factors that a district court must consider before 

dismissing a case for failure to prosecute:

[1] the court’s need to manage its docket, [2] the public interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation, [3] the risk of prejudice to 

defendants from delay, [4] the policy favoring disposition of cases 

on their merits.

Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 651 (9th Cir. 1991). For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of dismissing this case.

First, the Court has an inherent need to manage its docket. Appellant filed this case in 

September of 2013, and still has not filed his opening brief. In contrast, Appellee has been 

diligent in its defense. (See Appellee’s Brief, ECF No. 20.) Consequently, the Court finds that 

this factor weighs in favor of dismissing this case. Second, the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation also favors dismissing this case because the Court is wasting its time and 

resources attempting to compel Appellant’s cooperation in litigating his own case. Third, 

Appellant’s repeated failure to respond to correspondence prevents Appellees from seeking some 

sort of resolution. Finally, although the disposition of cases based on their merits is preferred, it 

is unlikely that such is an option here. The Court simply cannot move forward without 

Appellant’s assistance.

Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that all four factors support 

dismissing Appellant’s case. As such the Court hereby DISMISSES all pending claims against 

Appellees in this action. This case is CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-01893-TLN Document 25 Filed 08/27/14 Page 2 of 2