Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05790/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05790-27/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP FLORES, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VELOCITY EXPRESS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.12-cv-05790-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS CHARLES CHAMBERS FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Re: ECF No. 268

Before the Court is Defendants Velocity Express, LLC, TransForce, Inc., and Dynamex 

Operations East, LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Charles Chambers for 

Failure to Prosecute. ECF No. 269. The Court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and a 

putative class action pursuant to California’s Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. ECF No. 

1 ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misclassified their delivery drivers as independent 

contractors when they were, in fact, employees. ECF No. 140 (“FAC”) ¶ 3. Because of this 

misclassification, Plaintiffs allege that Velocity Express failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages 

and overtime. Id. ¶¶ 2, 3.

On June 3, 2013, the Court conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA. 

ECF No. 57. On April 16, 2015, the Court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs on the 

issue of successor liability as to Defendants TransForce and Dynamex, but denied Plaintiffs’ 

motion for partial summary judgment as to Defendants’ joint-employer status.1 ECF No. 156.

The parties proposed, and the Court approved, a process for selecting Bellwether Plaintiffs

 

1 Velocity is now defunct. ECF No. 150 at 1. Velocity has since been purchased by Defendant 

Dynamex, a subsidiary of Defendant Transforce. Id. at 5-6. 

Case 3:12-cv-05790-JST Document 291 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

– the members of the collective whose trials would proceed first. ECF No. 188. Under this

process, each of Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Court were to select one of the Bellwether 

Plaintiffs. Id. at 3. Defendants selected James Mack and Plaintiffs selected Claude Boconvi as 

Bellwether Plaintiffs. ECF Nos. 224, 226. On January 11, 2017, the Court selected Charles 

Chambers, one of two other candidates identified by Defendants, as the third Bellwether Plaintiff. 

ECF No. 237.

By all accounts, Mr. Chambers was an active participant in the litigation. He completed a 

Plaintiff Questionnaire (PQ) in January 2016, ECF No. 231-4, and sat for a deposition in October 

2016, ECF No. 242-25. In February 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Mr. Chambers to let him 

know that he had been selected as a Bellwether Plaintiff, and that the trial would likely be set for 

June or July of 2017. ECF No. 279 at 2. Mr. Chambers informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that he may 

be unavailable at that time due to “extenuating family circumstances.” Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel 

informed Defendants and the Court of Mr. Chambers’ unavailability. Id. On April 24, 2017, the 

Court granted summary judgment as to Bellwether Plaintiffs Mack, Boconvi, and Chambers on the 

issues of misclassification and willfulness, leaving only the damages amount to be determined. 

ECF No. 260. On May 2, 2017, the Court set a bench trial on damages in the Boconvi and Mack 

cases for June 12, 2017.2 ECF No. 263. Despite multiple calls, e-mail messages, and letters,

Plaintiffs’ counsel has been unable to contact Mr. Chambers since their February phone 

conversation. ECF No. 279 at 2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). A district court, however, “is required to weigh several factors in determining 

whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution. These factors include: (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. There must also be a showing of unreasonable delay. 

 

2

Shortly before trial, the parties reached a settlement regarding the judgment amount in these 

cases, thus obviating trial. Case No. 17-cv-02623, ECF No. 35.

Case 3:12-cv-05790-JST Document 291 Filed 08/11/17 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The district court is not required to make explicit findings on the essential factors.” Al-Torki v. 

Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or where at least three 

factors strongly support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th 

Cir.1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that “Mr. Chambers has demonstrated his unwillingness to serve in his 

role as a court-ordered bellwether or, more generally, to prosecute his claims,” and therefore 

should be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 269 at 2. They argue that, to effectively manage its 

docket, the Court must dismiss Mr. Chambers because his “lack of communication with his 

counsel, coupled with the doubt surrounding his attendance at trial pose a substantial threat to the 

pace of the litigation.” Id. at 4. They note that with the setting of trial for Boconvi and Mack, the 

litigation “has already moved on without” Chambers. Id. Defendants argue that allowing Mr. 

Chambers’ case to proceed when they have devoted their resources to preparing to litigate the 

cases of Boconvi and Mack would be unduly prejudicial (though this consideration is obviously 

lessened in view of their subsequent settlement of these cases before trial). Id. Defendants 

contend that in view of Mr. Chambers’ disappearance and non-cooperation with his counsel, and 

given the stage of this case, there is no less drastic sanction available. Id. Finally, Defendants 

argue there is no public interest in resolving Mr. Chambers’ case, as there are two other 

representative Plaintiffs, and “Mr. Chambers will simply no longer serve as the third 

representative of [the] claims” of the collective. Id. at 4-5.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that Mr. Chambers has failed to participate in this litigation, and 

provide no evidence of his desire to continue to prosecute his claims. See ECF No. 279 at 3. 

However, they advocate for a less drastic solution to dismissal: “wait[ing] until Chambers is able 

to inform Counsel about his extenuating circumstances and gauge his availability for trial on 

damages at a later date.” Id. They argue that Defendants would not be prejudiced by delay, as all 

that needs to be resolved with respect to Mr. Chambers is damages, which may ultimately not 

require a trial at all given the resolution of the Boconvi and Mack matters. Id.

Case 3:12-cv-05790-JST Document 291 Filed 08/11/17 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ contention that they would not be prejudiced by delay. They 

note that based on Mr. Chambers’ disappearance, “Defendants have lost the opportunity to prove 

that Chambers never provided services for more than 40 hours a week and, as such, has no 

overtime damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.” ECF No. 285 at 3. Defendants point out 

that allowing Mr. Chambers to pursue his claims after failing to participate in the case for months 

would incent other Opt-in Plaintiffs to delay in pursuing their case and defy Court orders, with no 

concern about the potential consequences of doing so. Id. at 4.

Upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Court finds that this case should be 

dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment on the issues of misclassification and 

willfulness, and all that Mr. Chambers had to do was to attend a trial on damages, which he failed 

to do. And neither Mr. Chambers nor Plaintiffs’ counsel has provided any reasonable explanation 

for Mr. Chambers’ apparent abandonment of his claims. Mr. Chambers’ failure to communicate 

with his attorneys for nearly four months despite their numerous phone calls, emails, and letters 

indicates that he has no interest in pursuing his claims. The Court, the parties, and the public have 

an interest in expeditious resolution of this case, which has been pending for five years. 

Defendants, in particular, have an interest in prompt resolution of the claims and certainty as to 

their potential liability. The Court finds that they would be prejudiced by having to wait for Mr. 

Chambers to reappear, particularly when there is no guarantee he will ever do so. Thus, the Court 

finds that the first three factors – (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) 

the Court’s need to manage its docket, and (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants – support 

dismissal. The Court can think of no less drastic sanction other than dismissal at this late stage in 

the case. In particular, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ suggested “viable alternative” solution of 

simply waiting indefinitely for Mr. Chambers to contact his counsel. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with 

prejudice for failure to prosecute claims, where party’s failure to comply with deadlines resulted in 

“inordinate delay in the expeditious resolution of litigation, and prejudice to the court’s need to 

manage its docket,” noting that failing to enforce court orders jeopardizes “the integrity of the 

district court”); Thomas v. California Victim Comp. Program, No. CV1607653JLSRAO, 2017 

Case 3:12-cv-05790-JST Document 291 Filed 08/11/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

WL 1508558, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 

CV1607653JLSRAO, 2017 WL 1505590 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) (“The Court deems it 

imprudent to wait any longer for Plaintiff to exhibit an interest in prosecuting this action with the 

requisite amount of diligence.”). These factors outweigh the public policy favoring disposition of 

cases on their merits, particularly given that none of the proposals before the Court provide a 

predictable path toward such disposition. 

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is granted. Plaintiff Charles 

Chambers is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2017

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05790-JST Document 291 Filed 08/11/17 Page 5 of 5