Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04786/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04786-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE FLESH COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRINTING STRATEGY, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

PRINTING STRATEGY, INC.,

Third Party Plaintiff,

v.

BEST WAY FREIGHT COMPANY; CENTRAL

TRANSPORT; and THE FLESH COMPANY,

Third Party Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-4786 CW

ORDER DENYING THIRD

PARTY DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND 

Third Party Defendant Central Transport (Central) has filed a

motion to dismiss Plaintiff The Flesh Company’s complaint for

failure to prosecute. Plaintiff The Flesh Company opposes the

motion. The motion was heard on June 12, 2008. Having considered

the parties’ papers, the Court DENIES Central’s motion. 

Case 4:07-cv-04786-CW Document 32 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2007, Central removed this case from Napa

County Superior Court. Case management conferences were held in

this Court on January 8, 2008 and April 22, 2008. Plaintiff did

not appear at either conference. On May 6, 2008, Central filed

this motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and noticed it for

hearing on June 12, 2008. Any opposition to the motion was due by

May 22, 2008. See Civ. L. R. 7-3(a). On June 5, 2008, Plaintiff

appeared in the case for the first time and filed an opposition to

the motion to dismiss. 

Counsel for Plaintiff acknowledge that the September 14, 2007

notice of removal was served on the firm. In the opposition,

counsel state that the notice and related documents “were never

entered into the counsels [sic] case tracking system. As a result

of the same, the Plaintiff was unaware of what conferences and or

hearings were scheduled in the federal court.” Opposition at 2-3. 

Counsel for Plaintiff also acknowledge that the firm received

copies of letters from Central to the Court regarding the case

management conferences. Those letters included the dates and times

of the conferences. See Nugent Decl., Ex. B. However, counsel for

Plaintiff states, “The facsimile letters that were sent by Central

were not deemed to be court notices by the employees of Plaintiff’s

counsel who received the same, so the letters were not forwarded to

attorneys in the firm.” Opposition at 3. 

Central’s attorney Christina Nugent declares that, on January

8, 2008, she left a voicemail message for Jay Tenenbaum, one of

Plaintiff’s attorneys, “requesting his participation in the

Case 4:07-cv-04786-CW Document 32 Filed 06/27/08 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

preparation of a Joint Case Management Conference Statement.” 

Nugent Decl. ¶ 3. Tenenbaum declares, “I did not receive the voice

mail message, however, I do not question the veracity of the

statement made by Ms. Nugent.” Tenenbaum Decl. ¶ 4. Counsel for

Plaintiff do not state whether the firm received various notices

from Central regarding the status of the case in this Court for

which Central has provided proofs of service. See Hering Decl.,

Exs. A-D. 

On March 18, 2008 the Napa court entered an order to show

cause regarding the status of the action. At the April 22, 2008

case management conference, in an effort to bring all parties

before this Court, the Court suggested that Central file a motion

to dismiss the federal court action for failure to prosecute and a

motion to dismiss the state court action because the case had been

removed. See Minute Order, Docket No. 11.

On April 28, 2008 Central filed in the state court a response

to the March 18 order to show cause. Central stated,

This case is presently pending in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of

California, Case No. 07-4786. Cross-complainant

Printing Strategy, Inc. and Cross-defendant Central

Transport have appeared in that Court. The Minute

Order relating to the most recent Case Management

Conference, held April 22, 2008, is attached hereto as

Exhibit A. Therein, the Honorable Claudia Wilken

directs Central Transport to file a motion to dismiss

the action pending in this Court on the ground that

the case has been removed. 

Central Transport requests that this Court

dismiss, without prejudice, the action presently

pending in this Court on the basis that the entire

action was removed to the federal court on September

19, 2007.

Nugent Decl., Ex. C. This response and the attached Minute Order

Case 4:07-cv-04786-CW Document 32 Filed 06/27/08 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

from this Court were served on counsel for Plaintiff by first class

and express mail. See id.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s attorneys state that they did not

learn that Central was going to file a motion to dismiss for

failure to prosecute until a May 5, 2008 hearing in the Napa court. 

At that hearing Philbert Seals, the attorney appearing for

Plaintiff, stated,

[W]e’ve been unaware that we had to or were required to

make an appearance in the federal court. We assumed

that since it had been removed to the federal court,

that not only the case was removed, but we as attorneys

were in the federal court. . . . 

We’ll make an appearance in federal court, if that

is required, and we’ll pursue it in federal court. It

has been entirely removed to the federal court. And

the only reason I don’t want it dismissed today is I

want to make sure that after we’re actually of record

in the federal court, I want to make sure it’s going to

move forward there.

Seals Decl., Ex. A at 5-6. The Napa court found that it did not

have jurisdiction to dismiss the case because it had been removed

to this Court but stayed the case for six months. Id. at 6. 

Seals declares that, beginning on the date of the state court

hearing, he has attempted to register with this Court’s Electronic

Case Files system but has encountered technological difficulties

doing so. 

Counsel for Plaintiff do not dispute that the instant motion

and the notice of hearing was served on the firm. Indeed, the

calendar clerk declares that she received the notice on May 6, 2008

and calendared the hearing. Owens Decl. ¶ 6. The calendar clerk

further declares, “On May 14, 2008, [I] gave the notice to an

attorney in the firm to oppose.” Id. Randall Baker, the attorney

Case 4:07-cv-04786-CW Document 32 Filed 06/27/08 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

to whom the motion was given declares, “On or about May 14, 2008,

the Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute was sent to my

office, with a request that I oppose the motion.” Baker Decl. ¶ 4. 

Baker goes on to declare that “my plate was full, and [] I simply

failed to Oppose the Motion.” Id. at ¶ 5. 

Counsel for Plaintiff request that the Court deny the motion

to dismiss. In addition counsel declare, 

The Plaintiff is prepared to go forward with the

instant case, to participate fully in all matters

scheduled hereafter by the court and to try the case,

if the same becomes necessary. The Plaintiff will also

pay modest sanctions, after notice and hearing on the

same, if the court deems a sanction hearing []

appropriate.

Tenenbaum Decl. ¶ 7. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 41(b) provides,

For 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 or of any claim against

the defendant. Unless the court in its order for

dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this

subdivision . . . operates as an adjudication upon the

merits.

The Ninth Circuit has held that, in deciding whether to

dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute, the Court must consider

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.

Rio Props. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir.

2002) (citing Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381,

Case 4:07-cv-04786-CW Document 32 Filed 06/27/08 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

1385 (9th Cir. 1988)); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,

642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet,963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

I. Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation and Court's

Interest in Docket Control

Here, the first two factors, the public interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court's interest in

docket control, clearly weigh in favor of dismissal. The Ninth

Circuit has stated that "the public's interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation always favors dismissal." Yourish v.

California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (1999). 

II. Risk of Prejudice to Defendant

"To 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. United States

Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987)). Although the

pendency of a lawsuit is not, in and of itself, sufficiently

prejudicial to warrant dismissal, id., "[u]nreasonable delay

creates a presumption of injury." Alexander v. Pacific Maritime

Asso., 434 F.2d 281, 283 (9th Cir. 1970). Absent Plaintiff's

pursuit of its claims against Printing Strategy, Printing Strategy

has no claims against Central. Therefore, Plaintiff's failure to

pursue this case left Printing Strategy and Central unable to

resolve their issues. 

The Ninth Circuit has held, "Whether prejudice is sufficient

to support an order of dismissal is in part judged with reference

Case 4:07-cv-04786-CW Document 32 Filed 06/27/08 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

to the strength of the plaintiff's excuse for the default." 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Although Plaintiff’s counsel’s

mishandling of the case was gross and their excuses weak, there is

no prejudice to Third Party Defendant beyond the pendency of the

lawsuit. The Court finds that this factor weighs slightly in favor

of dismissal.

III. Availability of Less Drastic Sanction

Regarding this factor, the Ninth Circuit employs a three-part

analysis to determine whether a district court properly considered

the adequacy of less drastic sanctions:

(1) did the court explicitly discuss the feasibility of

less drastic sanctions and explain why alternative

sanctions would be inappropriate, (2) did the court

implement alternative sanctions before ordering

dismissal, and (3) did the court warn the party of the

possibility of dismissal before actually ordering

dismissal?

Adriana, 913 F.2d at 1412-3. 

The Court has not imposed less drastic sanctions previously,

nor has it warned Plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal.

Further, the Court finds that alternative sanctions exist and

dismissal would be an inappropriate sanction at this juncture. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Central’s motion

to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute (Docket No. 19). 

However, Plaintiff is warned that any further failures promptly to

comply with the Court’s rules may result in dismissal of its case. 

Defendant Printing Strategy's unopposed motion to amend its

cross-complaint to add Charles Bartlett as a defendant and for

leave to serve Best Way is GRANTED (Docket No. 12). Printing

Case 4:07-cv-04786-CW Document 32 Filed 06/27/08 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

Strategy has informed the Court that Best Way has changed its name

to “TNT Best Way.” As discussed at the hearing, Printing Strategy

will need to get a stipulation from the other parties that it may

amend the complaint to name TNT Best Way before serving TNT Best

Way. Printing Strategy shall file an amended complaint and serve

it on Bartlett and TNT Best Way by June 26, 2008.

As discussed at the hearing, the parties shall meet and confer

regarding Plaintiff’s counsel’s offer to pay sanctions to

compensate Defendants for their expenses caused by Plaintiff’s

attorneys’ mishandling of the case to date. If the parties are

unable to reach an agreement, Printing Strategy and Central may

file a joint motion for sanctions and notice it for hearing on

August 5, 2008. 

A case management conference will be held on August 5, 2008. 

A joint case management statement, including proposed dates for the

case, will be due one week prior to the conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6/27/08

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04786-CW Document 32 Filed 06/27/08 Page 8 of 8