Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08156/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08156-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Guillen
Petitioner
Bradley Stewart
Claimant

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry Guillen,

Petitioner,

v. 

Bradley Stewart,

Claimant.

No. CV-18-08156-PCT-DWL

ORDER 

On January 23, 2019, the Court issued a Case Management Order, setting various 

deadlines, including a dispositive motions deadline of August 9, 2019. (Doc. 24.) That 

deadline lapsed without any dispositive motions filed.

On October 8, 2019, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why this case 

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the Court’s order 

requiring Petitioner to file a notice of readiness for scheduling a Final Pretrial 

Conference. (Doc. 32.)

On October 24, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the order to show cause. (Doc. 

37.) The Court granted a joint motion to extend deadlines (Doc. 36) and set new 

deadlines, including a March 13, 2020 deadline for good-faith settlement talks and an 

April 10, 2020 deadline for dispositive motions. (Doc. 37)

Once again, the deadlines have lapsed unheeded. The parties failed to file the joint 

report on settlement talks that was due no later than five working days after the deadline 

for good-faith settlement talks. (Doc. 24 ¶ 10.) And Petitioner again failed to file and 

Case 3:18-cv-08156-DWL Document 38 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

serve a notice of readiness for scheduling a Final Pretrial Conference within seven days 

after the dispositive motions deadline. (Id. ¶ 13.)

Petitioner was warned that failure to meet deadlines in the Court’s Case 

Management Order without substantial justification “may result in sanctions, including

dismissal of the action.” (Id. ¶ 14.) And, as noted above, Petitioner has already been 

through one round of showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure 

to follow the Court’s orders. (Docs. 32, 37.)

“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, in the 

exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate,

dismissal of a case.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), as 

amended (May 22, 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 

comply with a court order the district court must weigh five 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) the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 

Id. at 1260-61.

Petitioner will be afforded one last opportunity to show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

for failure to follow the Court’s orders.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner shall show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to 

follow the Court’s orders by filing a memorandum, not to exceed five pages, by May 5, 

2020.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-08156-DWL Document 38 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner does not respond to the Court’s 

order to show cause by May 5, 2020, the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

Dated this 28th day of April, 2020.

Case 3:18-cv-08156-DWL Document 38 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 3