Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01322/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01322-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J & J RANCH PRODUCE, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JOSE CISNEROS and JC & SONS )

PRODUCE, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 06-CV-1322 AWI GSA

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

BACKGROUND

On September 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action, alleging trademark

infringement and related state causes of action. Defendant did not file a responsive pleading. 

On February 20, 2007, the Clerk of the Court entered default. 

When Plaintiff did not file a motion for entry of default judgment or any other motion

with the court, on August 26, 2007, the Clerk of the Court issued a minute order that placed this

matter on the court’s September 24, 2007 calendar for a hearing on dismissal for lack of

prosecution. The minute order stated any opposition to dismissal was to be filed five court days

prior to the hearing. 

On September 17, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in opposition to dismissal. 

Plaintiff’s counsel represented that, despite diligent efforts, Plaintiff had been unable to identify a

witness capable of providing testimony in support of an application for a default judgment. 

Case 1:06-cv-01322-AWI-GSA Document 22 Filed 11/27/07 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

Counsel represented that on September 6, 2007, Plaintiff had learned that a shipment of grapes

bearing Plaintiff’s trademark and logo arrived at a warehouse in Porterville, California. 

Plaintiff’s counsel stated that an individual named Jose Robles was involved in the grape

shipment, and he had agreed to provide testimony that he had received the labels from

Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel requested an additional sixty days to obtain testimony from Mr.

Robles and to file an application for default judgment.

In light of the September 17, 2007 declaration, on September 20, 2007, the court granted

Plaintiff’s request for an extension and continued the hearing on dismissal for lack of prosecution

to November 26, 2007. The court further ordered that Plaintiff file any application for default

judgment within sixty days. 

Over sixty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an application for default

judgment, not filed any additional opposition to dismissal for lack of prosecution, and not

contacted the court in any way. 

On November 26, 2007, the court held a hearing concerning dismissal of this action for

lack of prosecution. Neither Plaintiff nor his attorney were present when the case was called. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action or failure to obey a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. th

1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution the court must

consider several factors, including: (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 alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9 Cir. 1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

th

1260-61. 

At this time, the court finds that dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute is

appropriate. The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest

Case 1:06-cv-01322-AWI-GSA Document 22 Filed 11/27/07 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

in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending for one year. 

Default was entered in February 2007, and Plaintiff has not filed a request for default judgment

since that time. Plaintiff was ordered to file a motion for default judgment, and Plaintiff has

failed to do so. The court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in which a plaintiff has

failed to litigate his case. The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs

heavily in favor of dismissal of such cases so that the court’s limited resources may be spent on

cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. Public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits also has little or no weight in actions where the Plaintiff has been unable or unwilling

to proceed with the action. The availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered, but

given that Plaintiff neither complied with the court’s September 20, 2007 order nor otherwise

contacted the court, the court has no effective sanction but to close the case. Finally, any risk of

prejudice to Defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal. Default has already been entered

against Defendants, and as such, it appears Defendants have no interest in litigating this action. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01322-AWI-GSA Document 22 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 3