Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01448/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01448-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abdo Fatah Alammari
Defendant
Joshua Cuevas
Plaintiff
La Familia Market, LLC
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA CUEVAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LA FAMILIA MARKET, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01448-CDB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY 

A COURT ORDER

(Doc. 6)

14-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Background

On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff Joshua Cuevas (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against 

Defendants La Familia Market, LLC and Abdo Fatah Alammari (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1). The 

complaint asserts claims for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(“ADA”), a claim for statutory damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh 

Act”), California Civil Code §§ 51-53, and related state law causes of action. (Id.). These claims 

stem from alleged barriers Plaintiff encountered while visiting a grocery store business 

establishment owned, operated, or leased by Defendants. (Id. at 2, 4). No Defendant has 

appeared.

On November 27, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff “to show cause, in writing, no 

Case 1:24-cv-01448-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 5
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

later than December 12, 2024, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim” in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Vo v. 

Choi. (Doc. 5) (emphasis in original); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (affirming a

district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim); see 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiff was cautioned that any failure to respond may result in a 

recommendation to dismiss of the entire action without prejudice. (Doc. 5 at 3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b) (stating that dismissal is warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to ... comply with ... a court 

order.”); see Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Plaintiff was further cautioned that an inadequate response will result in the Court recommending 

that supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim be declined and that the Unruh 

claim be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). (Doc. 5 at 3).

Plaintiff failed to file a response to the Court’s show cause order and the time do so has 

expired. For the reasons given below, the undersigned will recommend that the Court dismiss 

this action without prejudice.

Governing Legal Standards

Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 

be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 

the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and 

may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the 

action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may dismiss 

an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with 

local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 

failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 

F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 

with local rules).

“In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 

Case 1:24-cv-01448-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 5
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

required to weigh several 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, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 

citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 

must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders. Plaintiff has filed no response 

to the Court’s order to show cause, and the time to do so has passed. There are no other 

reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to respond and otherwise obey this 

Court’s orders. Thus, the first and second factors—the expeditious resolution of litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs fairly in favor of dismissal 

since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 

action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). This matter cannot proceed 

further without Plaintiff’s participation to inform the Court why it should not decline to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim in light of Vo v. Choi, and, thus, the 

presumption of injury holds given Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Thus, 

the third factor—a risk of prejudice to the Defendants—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 

856 F.2d at 1440.

The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 

disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 

“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.” In re PPA, 460 

F.3d at 1228. Plaintiff has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. He has 

instead failed to comply with this Court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the 

Local Rules, and is thus impeding the progress of this action. Therefore, the fourth factor — the 

Case 1:24-cv-01448-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 5
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

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 

Here, the Court’s order to show cause, requiring a response from Plaintiff, cautioned: “the failure 

to respond may result in a recommendation to dismiss of the entire action without prejudice.” 

(Doc. 6 at 3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that dismissal is warranted “[i]f the plaintiff 

fails to ... comply with ... a court order.”); see Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 

403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)). Plaintiff was adequately forewarned that the failure to timely 

respond to the show cause order could result in terminating sanctions.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules and the 

Court’s orders, and in so doing is failing to prosecute his case, the undersigned will recommend 

dismissal of this action.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge to 

this case.

For the reasons given above, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. The Court DISMISS this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this 

action and to comply with the Court’s order. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110.

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

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Case 1:24-cv-01448-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 4 of 5
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

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01448-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/18/24 Page 5 of 5