Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01626/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01626-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19-CV-01626 W (KSC)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIKA PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, 

INC. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-01626 W (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. 20]

Pending before the Court is Defendant Worldwide Flight Services’ motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). [Doc. 20.] The Court decides 

the matters on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 

For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.

Rule 41(b) provides:

If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court 

order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. 

Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this 

subdivision (b) ... operates as an adjudication on the merits. 

A Rule 41(b) dismissal “must be supported by a showing of unreasonable delay.” 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). A district court must further 

weigh: “(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 

Case 3:19-cv-01626-W-KSC Document 22 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-01626 W (KSC)

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

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits[,] and (5) the availability of less 

drastic sanctions.” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 

F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). Dismissal is appropriate where at least four factors 

support dismissal, or where three factors strongly support dismissal. See Frederik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F. 2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992).

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has consented to the dismissal of this case by 

failing to oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Judge Whelan Chambers Rule 3(d); 

Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). In addition, the Rule 41(b) factors counsel in favor of dismissal. 

On January 7, 2020, this Court granted Heng G. Shi’s motion to withdraw as 

counsel for Plaintiff. [Doc. 18.] Following Mr. Shi’s withdrawal, Plaintiff has been 

unresponsive except to state that she had never heard of the case or Mr. Shi. (Chaib 

Decl. [Doc. 20-1] ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff has caused unreasonable delay, and the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation favors dismissal. See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423; Omstead, 594 

F.3d at 1084. There is no indication Plaintiff intends to participate further in this lawsuit, 

effectively barring Defendant from conducting discovery, preparing a Rule 26(f) 

statement, or taking any meaningful action in this case. Dismissal without prejudice 

serves everyone’s interest here.

This action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01626-W-KSC Document 22 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2