Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01349/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01349-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CELESTE HOLLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH A. FARROW, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01349-JST 

ORDER DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA DMV, 

O’MALLEY, AND KOBAL WITH 

PREJUDICE

Re: ECF Nos. 31, 35, 39, 43

On November 21, 2014, the Court issued an order granting Defendants Nancy O’Malley 

and Catherine Kobal’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, and ordered Plaintiff to file an 

amended complaint as to those defendants by January 9, 2015. ECF Nos. 31, 35. Similarly, the 

Court granted Defendant California Department of Motor Vehicle’s (“DMV”) motion to dismiss

without prejudice on February 9, 2015, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint as to 

Defendant DMV by March 16, 2015. ECF Nos. 39, 43. 

Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint as to Defendant DMV or as to 

Defendants O’Malley and Kobal, these defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims 

against them with prejudice. ECF No. 44, ¶ 5.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

In the Ninth Circuit, “when a plaintiff fails to amend a complaint after the district court 

judge dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, the dismissal is typically considered a 

dismissal for failing to comply with a court order . . . .” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 

986 (9th Cir. 1999). To determine whether to dismiss a claim for failure to comply with a court 

order, a court weighs the following 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 

defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy 

Case 3:14-cv-01349-JST Document 45 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 

2002). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or where at least 

three factors strongly support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

Four of the five Pagtalunan factors strongly support the dismissal of this action.

The first two factors—the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket—relate to “the efficient administration of judicial business for 

the benefit of all litigants with cases pending.” Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, 

S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1980). By failing to comply with court orders to amend her 

complaint, Plaintiff has stalled this action as it relates to Defendants O’Malley, Kobal, and the 

DMV, thereby depriving the Court of the ability to control the pace of its docket. Plaintiff is 

effectively clogging the Court’s docket with unpursued claims, diverting time and attention from 

other litigants who wish to pursue their actions. These factors weigh strongly in favor of 

dismissal.

As to the third factor—the risk of prejudice to defendant—“a presumption of prejudice 

arises from the plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute.” Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 400. A plaintiff may 

rebut this presumption only “with an excuse for his delay that is anything but frivolous.” Nealey, 

662 F.2d at 1281. Plaintiff has provided no excuse for her failure to amend her complaint, after 

the Court twice granted her leave to amend. Further, Defendants O’Malley, Kobal, and the DMV 

have suffered actual prejudice by being forced to continue to litigate this action, despite there 

being no claims alleged against them. Thus, this factor weighs strongly in favor of dismissal.

The fourth factor is the availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court gave Plaintiff two

opportunities to file an amended complaint to assert claims against these defendants. Plaintiff also 

had the opportunity to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, but she failed to do so.

The Court also has fulfilled its “obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” 

Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). Rather than dismissing Plaintiff’s claims 

against these defendants with prejudice, the Court attempted the lesser sanction of dismissing 

Case 3:14-cv-01349-JST Document 45 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, and granting Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint—once as 

to the DMV, and once as to Defendants O’Malley and Kobal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 992.

This evidence is sufficient to establish that the Court has considered sanctions short of 

dismissal. See In re Phenyl propanolami ne (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (“warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the 

‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.”) (citation omitted); see also Nevijel v. N. Coast Life 

Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Though there are a wide variety of sanctions short of 

dismissal available, the district court need not exhaust them all before finally dismissing a case”). 

This factor strongly favors dismissal.

The fifth factor concerns the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 

which normally “strongly counsels against dismissal.” PPA Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d at 1228. 

Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “a case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed 

by a party’s failure to comply with deadlines . . . cannot move forward toward resolution on the 

merits.” Id. at 1228. Consequently, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility 

it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 

direction.” Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 

Court’s orders to amend her complaint has impeded progress in this case, and Plaintiff’s claims as 

to the remaining defendants will proceed despite dismissal of the claims against Defendants 

O’Malley, Kobal, and the DMV. Thus, this factor is neutral at best.

Because granting further leave to amend would be futile, and because of the undue delay in 

this case, dismissal is with prejudice. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 998 (affirming dismissal with 

prejudice for failure to timely amend complaint). Bearing in mind its obligation of sensitivity to 

pro se litigants, the Court has more than adequately “provide[d] the litigant with notice of the 

deficiencies” in her prosecution of this action, and provided several opportunities for compliance. 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding the public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the 

Court’s need to manage its docket and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of the 

Case 3:14-cv-01349-JST Document 45 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

litigation require dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the DMV, O’Malley, and Kobal. In view 

of Plaintiff’s failure to amend her complaint, the Court finds no adequate less drastic sanction is 

available.

Accordingly, the Court hereby dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants DMV, 

O’Malley, and Kobal with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01349-JST Document 45 Filed 04/06/15 Page 4 of 4