Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00658/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00658-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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 

Randall Harris, a single man,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Branch Management Tree Service, LLC, an 

Arizona corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV14-0658 PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw. Doc. 6. In response to the motion, 

the Court set a hearing on May 7, 2014. Doc. 7. The Court specifically ordered that 

Plaintiff Randall Harris “shall appear in person at the hearing.” Id. Plaintiff did not 

appear at the hearing. Plaintiff’s counsel did appear, and explained that he had been 

unable to communicate with Plaintiff. Counsel stated that Plaintiff’s telephone has been 

disconnected and letters mailed to Plaintiff’s address, including those sent by certified 

mail, have been returned unopened. Counsel even stated that he performed a skip trace to 

try to locate Plaintiff, but was unsuccessful. 

 The Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Because Plaintiff failed to 

appear at the hearing as ordered and does not have a telephone number or address at 

which the Court may contact him, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed 

without prejudice. 

 The Court has inherent power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. See Link 

v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). “The power to invoke this sanction is 

Case 2:14-cv-00658-DGC Document 10 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to 

avoid congestion in the District Courts.” Id. In determining whether dismissal is 

warranted, the Court must weigh five factors: the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of the litigation, the Court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to 

the defendant, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and the 

availability of less drastic sanctions. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 

1988). 

 Balancing these factors, the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is 

warranted. This case cannot be resolved expeditiously, and the Court cannot manage its 

docket with respect to this case, without Plaintiff’s participation or any means of 

contacting him. Defendant will be prejudiced if this case remains pending with Plaintiff 

unrepresented and incommunicado. Although public policy clearly favors disposition on 

the merits, Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the hearing and failure to inform counsel of his 

location make disposition on the merits impossible. The Court has considered alternative 

measures, but can find none that seems effective. An order to show cause why dismissal 

is not warranted or an order imposing lesser sanctions “would only find itself taking a 

round trip tour through the United States mail.” Id. at 1441. The Court finds that the least 

drastic response to Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the hearing and failure to provide 

information where he may be contacted is dismissal without prejudice. 

IT IS ORDED THAT that this case is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk is 

directed to terminate this matter. 

 Dated this 8th day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00658-DGC Document 10 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 2