Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01269/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01269-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Annette Robledo, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CEC Entertainment Incorporated, an 

Arizona corporation doing business as 

Chuck E. Cheese’s, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV14-1269 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff’s counsel have moved to withdraw. Doc. 26. They advise the Court that 

Plaintiff has stopped communicating with them and her location is now unknown. Id. 

Counsel have tried communicating with Plaintiff by email, telephone, mail, through her 

mother, and with the aid of a process server, all to no avail. Id. Plaintiff has failed to 

cooperate with counsel in preparing for a settlement conference scheduled by the Court 

for November 21, 2014. See Doc. 19. 

 Plaintiff has a general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. 

v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute 

or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal 

of an action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U .S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the 

Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a 

case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) appears 

to require a motion. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a 

Case 2:14-cv-01269-DGC Document 27 Filed 11/17/14 Page 1 of 2
‐ 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 

complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633. 

 In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal, the 

Court must weigh the following five factors: “(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.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th 

Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). Here, 

the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to communicate 

with her counsel and prepare for events scheduled by the Court prevents the case from 

proceeding in the foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against 

dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic 

alternative is available. Without Plaintiff’s current address, however, certain alternatives 

are bound to be futile. As in Carey, “[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not 

warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour 

through the United States mail.” Id. at 1441. 

 The Court concludes that dismissal of this case under Rule 41(b) is appropriate. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 26) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Doc. 24) is granted. The settlement 

conference set in this case for November 21, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. before 

Judge John A. Buttrick is vacated. 

 3. Pursuant to Rule 41(b), this action is dismissed. 

 4. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 17th day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01269-DGC Document 27 Filed 11/17/14 Page 2 of 2