Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00632/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00632-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Palisades Collection, LLC
Defendant
Gary Stricklin
Plaintiff

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

GARY STRICKLIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

PALISADES COLLECTION, LLC., )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

NO. 1:09-CV-00632-AWI-GSA

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

BACKGROUND

On April 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Palisades Collection, LLC. On

June 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. No further document was filed in this action.

On March 2, 2010, the Clerk of the Court issued a minute order that placed this matter on

the court’s March 29, 2010 calendar for a hearing on dismissal for lack of prosecution. The

minute order stated any opposition to dismissal was to be filed by March 15, 2010. Plaintiff did

not file an opposition to dismissal for lack of prosecution and did not contact the court in any

way.

On March 29, 2010, the court held a hearing concerning dismissal of this action for lack

of prosecution. Neither Plaintiff nor his attorney were present when the case was called. 

Noting that nothing had occurred in this action since the parties filed a notice of settlement, the

court dismissed this action.

///

Case 1:09-cv-00632-AWI-GSA Document 13 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 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

LEGAL STANDARD

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. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. th

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)

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

drastic alternatives. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9 Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. th

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992)); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9 Cir. th th

1995). “These factors are ‘not a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do

anything,’ but a ‘way for a district judge to think about what to do.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine

(PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9 Cir. 2006); (quoting Valley Eng'rs th

Inc. v. Elec. Eng'g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9 Cir. 1998). th

DISCUSSION 

The court finds that dismissal 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. “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation

always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d

983, 990 (9 Cir. 1999). This action has been pending since April 9, 2009. Despite Plaintiff’s th

notice of settlement, Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with a stipulation for dismissal. The

court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in which a plaintiff has failed to litigate his

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. The court cannot continue to expend its scare resources assisting

a litigant who will not help himself by filing the required documents. Thus, both the first and

second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00632-AWI-GSA Document 13 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 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

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Yourish 191 F.3d at 991. 

However, delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence

will become stale. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. Defendant has agreed to settle this action. As

such, any risk of prejudice to Defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

The availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered, but given that Plaintiff did

not comply with the court’s March 2, 2010 order, appear at the March 29, 2010 hearing, or

otherwise contact the court, the court has no effective sanction but to close the case. 

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor normally

weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. However, the court finds this factor has

little weight in actions where the Plaintiff has been unable or unwilling to proceed with the

action. “[A] case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a party's failure to comply with

deadlines and discovery obligations cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits. Thus,

[the Ninth Circuit has] also recognized that 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.

 

ORDER

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: March 29, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00632-AWI-GSA Document 13 Filed 03/30/10 Page 3 of 3