Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05523/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05523-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Directv Inc
Plaintiff
Willy Lopez
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

WILLY LOPEZ, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-5523 AWI DLB

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF PROSECUTION

On April 2, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint for statutory damages. On July 22, 2004,

Plaintiff filed a notice of automatic stay. On January 5, 2007, the Clerk of the Court issued a

minute order setting a February 20, 2007 hearing date to determine if this action should be

dismissed for lack of prosecution. The order stated any opposition to dismissal was to be filed

five court days prior to the hearing. No opposition was timely filed. The case was called during

the court’s afternoon calender on February 20, 2007, but neither Plaintiff nor any other party

appeared. 

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9thCir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution the court

must consider several factors, including: (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)

Case 1:04-cv-05523-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 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 2

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less

drastic alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

1260-61. 

At this time, the court finds dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute is

appropriate. The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest

in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending for almost

three years. Plaintiff has filed no document with this court in over two years. The court cannot

manage its docket if it maintains cases in which the plaintiff has failed to litigate its case. The

public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of

such cases so that the court’s limited resources may be spent on cases in which the litigant is

actually proceeding. Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits also has little or

no weight in actions where the plaintiff has not contacted the court in over two years. The

availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered, but given that Plaintiff has not

contacted the court in two years and did not respond to the court’s January 5, 2007 order, the

court has no effective sanction but to close the case. The January 5, 2007 order informed Plaintiff

that any opposition to dismissal must be filed by February 12, 2007 and it must appear at the

February 20, 2007 hearing. Finally, the risk of prejudice to Defendant also weighs in favor of

dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in

prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05523-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2