Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02759/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02759-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332oc Diversity-Other Contract

---

– 1 – 11cv2759 

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 

PAUL BARTLEY, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

Case No. 11-cv-2759-BAS(JLB) 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

 v. 

JAPAN PROCESSING SERVICE 

CO., LTD., et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Despite several notices and hearings held for failure to prosecute, this case, 

filed five years ago, has failed to progress beyond the service-of-process stage. 

Hence, for the reasons discussed below, the Court exercises its inherent authority to 

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ action. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On November 29, 2011, Plaintiffs filed this Complaint against thirty-six 

Defendants asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil 

Case 3:11-cv-02759-BAS-JLB Document 111 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 5
 – 2 – 11cv2759 

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 

conspiracy. (ECF No. 1.) These claims stem from a joint-venture contract for 

exclusive services to be rendered by Plaintiffs to build a credit-card-processing 

platform for the use of all Defendants. (Id.) 

On August 20, 2012, this Court held an Order to Show Cause hearing as to 

why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal 

Rule Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 3.) After several requests for continuances and 

some shuffling of attorneys, on October 13, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a status report 

indicating they were “actively seeking process on the Defendants.” (ECF No. 13.) 

The Court rescheduled the Order to Show Cause hearing for March 17, 2014. (ECF 

No. 14.) On March 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed another status report indicating they had 

served some of the Defendants and they were continuing their efforts to serve. (ECF 

No. 34.) They requested 60 days to serve the remaining defendants, which the Court 

granted. (Id.) 

On May 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss two of the 

Defendants (Dream Get and Ozawa), which the Court granted. (ECF Nos. 67, 68.) 

On February 10, 2015, the Court noticed Plaintiffs that it was once again 

setting the matter for an Order to Show Cause hearing on March 23, 2015, as to 

whether the case should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 41.1. (ECF No. 71.) Shortly thereafter, on March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs requested 

an entry of default against some of the Defendants. (ECF No. 72.) On March 23, 

2015, at the Order to Show Cause hearing, Plaintiffs requested more time to file a 

Motion for Default Judgment, which the Court granted. (ECF No. 101.) 

On June 23, 2015, the Court issued yet another notice of an Order to Show 

Cause hearing for failure to move for default judgment pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

55.1, set for July 6, 2015. (ECF No. 102). On July 6, 2015, Plaintiffs asked for an 

additional 30 days to move for default judgment, which the Court granted. (ECF No. 

104.) 

On August 11, 2015, Plaintiffs did file a Motion for Default Judgment against 

Case 3:11-cv-02759-BAS-JLB Document 111 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 5
 – 3 – 11cv2759 

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 

some of the Defendants and moved for dismissal with respect to the remaining, 

unserved, Defendants. (ECF No. 109.) On May 2, 2016, the Court denied without 

prejudice the Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 110.) The Court explained that 

it had significant concerns about its ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over these 

foreign Defendants. However, the Court gave Plaintiffs leave to file a revised motion 

for Default Judgment, provided Plaintiffs did so no later than May 30, 2016. (Id.) 

The Court directed Plaintiffs to address the issue of personal jurisdiction in that 

revised motion. (Id.) 

May 30, 2016 has come and gone without any response from Plaintiffs. 

II. ANALYSIS 

“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, ‘[i]n the 

exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate ... 

dismissal of a case.’” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

475 U.S. 829 (1986); accord Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) 

(holding courts are vested with an inherent power “to manage their own affairs so as 

to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”) Although due process 

generally requires that the party have notice and the opportunity to be heard before 

dismissal, when a party may be said to have knowledge of the consequences of his 

failure to act, the court may dispense with the necessity for advance notice and a 

hearing. Link, 370 U.S. at 630-32. “Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty 

and, therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferkid, 963 

F.2d at 1260. 

“The circumstances in which a court may exercise its inherent power to 

dismiss an action include an action where a Plaintiff has failed to prosecute the 

case[.]” Link, 370 U.S. at 630. In determining whether to exercise this power, “the 

district court must weigh five factors, including: (1) the public’s interest in 

Case 3:11-cv-02759-BAS-JLB Document 111 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 5
 – 4 – 11cv2759 

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 

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.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1260-61 (internal quotations omitted). 

A. Public’s Interest In Expeditious Resolution 

“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). This case 

has been pending for five years. The case has not even progressed beyond the serviceof-process stage. Hence, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution favors 

dismissal in this case. 

B. Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket 

A district court is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a 

particular case interferes with docket management and the public interest. Ash v. 

Cuetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). In this case, the Court has held six 

hearings on the issue of the Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute, issued at least four Order 

to Show Cause notices, and given Plaintiffs every opportunity to file their motion for 

default judgment. The Court has reached the conclusion that it is more interested in 

seeing the case progress than Plaintiffs are. The Court’s need to manage its docket 

favors dismissal. 

C. Prejudice to the Defendants 

Prejudice can be presumed from unreasonable delay. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 

1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). The allegations in the complaint stem from actions allegedly 

taken in 2009. Memories have faded. Evidence may or may not exist. And yet 

Plaintiffs have not moved beyond the service-of-process stage. This prong favors 

dismissal. 

Case 3:11-cv-02759-BAS-JLB Document 111 Filed 06/15/16 Page 4 of 5
 – 5 – 11cv2759 

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 

D. Public Policy 

Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 

291 F.3d 639, 643. The Court recognizes that this factor weighs against dismissal. 

E. Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives 

After multiple hearings and Orders to Show Cause, the Court concludes that 

less drastic alternatives do not exist. Although the Court recognizes that due process 

generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Court notes that it has 

previously held six hearings directing Plaintiffs to move the case forward. In the most 

recent order, the Court directed Plaintiffs, if they choose to file a Motion for Default 

Judgment, to do so no later than May 30, 2016. (ECF No. 110.) Plaintiffs failed to do 

so. Hence, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have lost interest in pursuing this case and 

less drastic alternatives do not exist. 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

The Court exercises its inherent power to dismiss this action for Plaintiffs’ 

failure to prosecute. Hence, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 15, 2016 

 

Case 3:11-cv-02759-BAS-JLB Document 111 Filed 06/15/16 Page 5 of 5