Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02111/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02111-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Citizenship

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas L. Propst, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

David Michael Simon, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2111-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On February 28, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts

in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Dkt. #46. The parties filed a stipulation to extend the due date for

Plaintiffs to respond. Dkt. #53. The stipulation was granted by the Court and Plaintiffs were

given until May 10, 2010 to file a response. Dkt. #55. Plaintiffs did not file a response to

the motion for summary judgment by the May 10, 2010 deadline. The Court accordingly

entered an order requiring Plaintiffs to respond by June 11, 2010. Dkt. #58. Plaintiffs failed

to comply with the Court’s order. 

Before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the rules

or an order, the Court must weigh 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 sanctions. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423

(9th Cir. 1986). The first three factors favor dismissal. The fourth factor, as always, weighs

against dismissal. The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The Court has twice extended the

Case 2:08-cv-02111-DGC Document 59 Filed 06/22/10 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 -

time for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ motion. The Court’s most recent order required

Plaintiffs to respond, and they failed to do so. When Plaintiffs repeatedly refuse to respond

to direct orders from the Court, no sanction short of dismissal appears likely to move the case

forward.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. This action is dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and to respond to

Court orders.

2. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02111-DGC Document 59 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2