Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01525/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01525-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CROSSMARK INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01525-TLN-EFB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

This case was ordered transferred to this Court on June 27, 2013. (ECF No. 13.) The case 

was transferred on July 29, 2013. (ECF No. 14.) This Court issued the Scheduling

Order in this case over twelve months ago, on March 19, 2014. (ECF No. 22) On July 1, 2015, 

this Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and sanctioned Plaintiff’s attorney $250 for failure to adhere to this Court’s 

orders. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff’s counsel paid the fine and filed a letter with the Court stating 

that despite counsel's attempts to contact her, Plaintiff has not moved forward with her case. 

(ECF No. 34.)

Plaintiff has not yet entered an appearance, has not engaged local counsel pursuant to 

Local Rule 182(h), and out-of-state counsel has not been admitted pro hac vice pursuant to Local 

Rule 180(b)(2). Further, Plaintiff has not responded to written discovery propounded by 

Defendant.

Case 2:13-cv-01525-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/10/15 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

“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because

of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

629 (1962). The Ninth Circuit has set forth four factors that a district court must consider before 

dismissing a case for failure to prosecute:

[1] the court’s need to manage its docket, [2] the public interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation, [3] the risk of prejudice to 

defendants from delay, [4] the policy favoring disposition of cases 

on their merits.

Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 651 (9th Cir. 1991). For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of dismissing this case.

First, the Court has an inherent need to manage its docket. Plaintiff filed this case in 

January 2013 and has not moved forward with her case. Second, the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation also favors dismissing this case because the Court is wasting 

its time and resources attempting to compel Plaintiff’s cooperation in litigating her own case. 

Third, Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the litigation of her case prevents Defendants from 

seeking some sort of resolution. Finally, although the disposition of cases based on their merits in 

preferred, it is unlikely that such is an option here. The Court simply cannot move forward 

without Plaintiff’s assistance.

Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that all four factors support 

dismissing Plaintiff’s case. As such, the Court hereby DISMISSES all pending claims against 

Defendant in this action. This case is CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-01525-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 2