Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00398/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00398-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 - 06cv0398

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASSANDRA STAFFORD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06-CV-0398 H

(BLM)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

vs.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, OFFICER W

ORVOSH, and DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

On August 17, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint

for failure to appear at a mandatory settlement conference, failure to appear for

deposition, and failure to comply with pretrial requirements. (Doc. No. 30.) Further,

the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to appear for her deposition, requiring her

to personally appear at the pretrial conference and hearing on Defendants’ motion to

dismiss, requiring her to comply with all pretrial requirements, and warned of the

possibility of terminating sanctions for failing to comply. (Doc. No. 29.) Plaintiff did

not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The Court held the pretrial conference and hearing on Defendants’ motion to

dismiss on August 27, 2007. Plaintiff’s counsel, James Dunn, appeared telephonically,

but Plaintiff failed to appear as ordered by the Court. George Schaefer appeared on

behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel represented that he did not oppose the motion

to dismiss and that he had lost contact with Plaintiff. 

Case 3:06-cv-00398-H-BLM Document 33 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 06cv0398

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant may

move for dismissal based upon the failure of a plaintiff to prosecute or failure to

comply with court orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Rule

37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to dismiss any part of an

action or to render judgment by default against a party who fails to appear for a court

ordered deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) & (d). 

The Ninth Circuit has set forth the following five part test for determining when

dismissal sanctions are just: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

[party seeking sanctions]; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v. Elec.

Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998); Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84

F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996). Because the first and second factors typically support

sanctions while the fourth disfavors dismissal, prejudice to the moving party and the

availability of less drastic sanctions, the third and fifth factors, are usually decisive.

Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057. A presumption of prejudice arises from a Plaintiff’s

unexplained failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Laurino v. Syringa Gen. Hosp., 279 F.3d

750, 753 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit has indicated “that factor 5 involves

consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly discussed alternative

sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the

possibility of dismissal.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057 (citing Malone v. U.S. Postal

Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th Cir.1987)). Nevertheless, “despite all this elaboration of

factors, [the Ninth Circuit has] said that it is not always necessary for the court to

impose less serious sanctions first, or to give any explicit warning.” Id. (citing Adriana

Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1413 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Looking at the Valley Engineers factors, as the Ninth Circuit noted, the first and

second factors weigh in favor of dismissal here. Further, while the fourth factor

generally disfavors dismissal, Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal here, and the Ninth

Case 3:06-cv-00398-H-BLM Document 33 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 06cv0398

Circuit has noted that this factor is not enough to preclude imposition of sanctions

where other factors weigh in favor of sanctions. See Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). Looking at the third factor, the risk of

prejudice to Defendants is high. The Court has already held the pretrial conference,

and contrary to Court order and rules, Plaintiff has not participated in any discovery or

pretrial preparations. Defendants have had no opportunity to depose Plaintiff and fully

prepare a defense before trial. Turning to the fifth factor, the availability of less drastic

sanctions, the Court has not imposed any sanctions up until this point and explicitly

warned Plaintiff that failure to comply could result in terminating sanctions.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not appear for the Court-ordered deposition and did not

appear for the pretrial conference and hearing. Under these circumstances, particularly

in light of Plaintiff’s non-opposition to Defendants’ motion, terminating sanctions are

appropriate. See, e.g., Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057. Accordingly, having

considered the papers, the record, and the parties representations, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 27, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies To:

All Parties of Record

Case 3:06-cv-00398-H-BLM Document 33 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 3