Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02247/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02247-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

MARTIN FERNANDEZ on Behalf of 

Himself and All Others 

Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEIDOS, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-02247-GEB-KJN

DISMISSAL ORDER

An order issued on August 28, 2015, granting 

Defendant’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) and 

12(b)(6) dismissal motion. (Order, ECF No. 49.) That Order 

granted Plaintiff twenty days to file an Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the prescribed 

time period. Therefore, the Court considers whether this action 

should be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failing 

to comply with a court order. 

“District courts have inherent power to control their 

dockets and may impose sanctions, including dismissal, in the 

exercise of that discretion.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 

273 (9th Cir. 1991). However, since “dismissal is a harsh 

penalty, it should be imposed as a sanction only in extreme 

circumstances.” Id.

Case 2:14-cv-02247-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 10/20/15 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

“Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails 

to amend his complaint after the district judge dismisses the 

complaint with leave to amend, the dismissal is typically 

considered a dismissal for failing to comply with a court order 

rather than for failing to prosecute the claim.” Yourish v. Cal. 

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). To dismiss a case 

as a sanction, 

the district court must consider five 

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 alternatives.

Id. at 990 (quotation and citations omitted).

The balance of the referenced factors favors dismissal 

of this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with 

prejudice. Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant.

Dated: October 20, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02247-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 2