Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02685/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02685-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1 

15cv2685 JM (NLS) 

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 

THERESA BROOKE, a married woman 

dealing with her sole and separate claim, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

HOTEL CIRCLE PROPERTY LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability Company 

doing business as TOWN AND 

COUNTRY RESORT & CONVENTION 

CENTER, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 15cv2685 JM (NLS) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER 

DISMISSING CASE WITH 

PREJUDICE 

 The court held an Order to Show Cause (OSC) hearing for why this case should 

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Neither party appeared at the OSC hearing. For 

the following reasons, this court RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-02685-JM-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

15cv2685 JM (NLS) 

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

Factual Background. 

 Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed this action against the Town and Country Resort and 

Convention Center on December 15, 2016. She alleges that on November 20, 2015, she 

contacted the Town and Country to book a room. Compl. ¶ 24. Brooke, a disabled 

person confined to a wheelchair, asked whether the hotel pool or jacuzzi had a pool lift or 

other means of access for disabled persons. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 24. The Town and Country 

representative said that they did not have any lifts for disabled access for the pool or 

jacuzzi. Compl. ¶ 24. Brooke alleges she was deterred from visiting this hotel because 

of the accessibility barrier. Compl. ¶ 26. 

 On February 19, 2016 Brooke requested that the clerk enter default against the 

Town and Country. Dkt. No. 6. The Clerk entered default on February 22, 2016. Dkt. 

No. 7. On April 18, 2016—before the Town and Country formally appeared in this 

case—Brooke filed a notice of settlement, stating, “NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that 

the parties in the above-captioned matter have reached a resolution to this cause of action. 

The parties anticipate memorializing settlement papers in the coming weeks and filing a 

dismissal.” Dkt. No. 8. 

 The next day the court set a telephonic Settlement Disposition Conference for June 

3, 2016 and directed that counsel for both parties participate. Dkt. No. 9. Peter Strojnik 

appeared for Brooke and Robert Gallagher appeared for the Town and Country. Dkt. No. 

10. The court’s notes reflect that the parties remained agreeable to settle but for various 

reasons needed more time to execute the settlement. The court set up a follow-up 

conference for June 24, 2016. 

 At the June 24 conference, only Peter Strojnik appeared. Both Mr. Strojnik and the 

court tried to contact Mr. Gallagher but neither could reach him. The court then set an inperson Settlement Disposition Conference for July 21, 2016 but noted that it would 

vacate the conference if the parties filed dismissal papers or if Brooke filed a motion for 

default judgment before that time. Dkt. No. 11. 

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-02685-JM-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 5
3 

15cv2685 JM (NLS) 

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

 No dismissal papers or motion for default judgment were filed by the July 21 

deadline. The court then noted that no conference was held because neither party 

appeared for the July 21 Settlement Disposition Conference. Dkt. No. 12. Because no 

party appeared, the court set the September 8, 2016 OSC for failure to appear. It also 

gave the parties the opportunity to avoid having the OSC if they filed dismissal papers or 

a motion for default judgment, and warned Brooke that if no papers were filed the court 

would recommend to the district judge that this case be dismissed with prejudice. The 

OSC came on for hearing on September 8, 2016, and no attorney or party appeared.1

Discussion. 

Five factors determine whether a court should dismiss a claim for either failure to 

prosecute or failure to comply with a court order: (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 defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 

(9th Cir. 1992). Further, “a dismissal for lack of prosecution must be supported by a 

showing of unreasonable delay, which creates a presumption that the defendants have 

been injured.” Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Service Employees Int’l Union, 2013 

WL 6500069, *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2013) (internal quotations omitted). 

As to the first factor, the public has an interest in expeditiously resolving litigation, 

which weighs in favor of dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 

2002) (citing Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Here, 

Brooke’s noncompliance with orders to either appear in court or file a motion for default 

judgment have “caused this case to languish on the Court's docket” for five months, 

which also affects the court’s ability to manage its docket. See Prime Healthcare, 2013 

                                               

1

 Because no attorney has formally appeared for Town and Country the court has not sent 

notice of any of its orders to that party. But Brooke’s attorney previously sent notice of 

other court orders to the Town and Country’ attorney. 

Case 3:15-cv-02685-JM-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 5
4 

15cv2685 JM (NLS) 

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

WL 6500069, *2 (finding that the case’s “languishing” on the docket for over two 

months was sufficient to find that the first two factors favored dismissal). 

 As to the third factor, “[t]o prove prejudice, a defendant must establish that 

plaintiff's actions impaired defendant's ability to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere 

with the rightful decision of the case.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing Malone v. 

U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987)). But where there is unnecessary 

delay there is a presumption of injury to the defendant. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 

1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, there has been an unreasonable delay in that Brooke 

notified the court that this case settled nearly five months ago. She was given four 

opportunities to file either dismissal papers or a motion for default judgment but never 

filed anything. She failed to appear at the last two court-ordered hearings. While it 

appeared at the first two conferences that settlement finalization was ongoing, Brooke 

never informed the court—by either a motion to continue or a motion for default 

judgment—of the status of her negotiations with the Town and Country. This 

unreasonable delay and failure to communicate presumes an injury to the defense. See 

Prime Healthcare, 2013 WL 6500069, *3 (finding unreasonable delay and prejudice to 

defendants where “Plaintiff fail[ed] to communicate Plaintiff's intentions to this Court by 

formal notice or motion for extension of time”). 

 The Ninth Circuit created a three-part analysis to determine whether a district court 

properly determined that no less harsh sanction than dismissal is appropriate. The factors 

include: (1) whether the court discussed the feasibility of less drastic sanctions and why 

those sanctions would be inappropriate; (2) whether the court previously implemented 

alternate sanctions; and (3) whether the court warned the party of the possibility of 

dismissal. Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412-13 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(citing Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). Here, the court could not propose any less drastic 

sanctions because no party appeared at the last two hearings or filed anything in response 

to the OSC. Further, even when the court warned Brooke that it would recommend that 

this case be dismissed with prejudice, Brooke never filed any sort of response. Given 

Case 3:15-cv-02685-JM-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/14/16 Page 4 of 5
5 

15cv2685 JM (NLS) 

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

that the three other factors thus far weigh in favor of dismissal, Brooke never objected to 

a recommendation of dismissal with prejudice, and that a dismissal without prejudice 

would cause continued uncertainty for the Town and Country, the court finds that 

dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate recommendation. 

 Finally, “[p]ublic policy favors disposition of cases on the merits.” Pagtalunan, 

291 F.3d at 643 (citing Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 

1998)). This factor does not weigh in favor of dismissal with prejudice. 

Order. 

 This court RECOMMENDS that the district judge DISMISS this case with 

prejudice for failure to prosecute. This report and recommendation of the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than September 28, 2016, any party to this action 

may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections must be filed with 

the court and served on all parties no later than October 5, 2016. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 14, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-02685-JM-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/14/16 Page 5 of 5