Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00360/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00360-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hilton Sacramento Arden West
Defendant
Hilton Worldwide, Inc.
Defendant
Loretha Martin
Plaintiff
Odis Martin
Plaintiff
WHGCA 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ODIS MARTIN and LORETHA

MARTIN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HILTON SACRAMENTO ARDEN WEST; 

WHGCA LLC; and HILTON 

WORLDWIDE, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-00360-GEB-AC

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

HILTON SACRAMENTO ARDEN WEST

The July 14, 2014 Status Order required Plaintiffs to 

“[n]o later than July 28, 2014, . . . either file whatever 

documents are required to prosecute this case as a default matter 

against Defendant Hilton Sacramento Arden West or show cause in a 

filing why that defendant should not be dismissed for failure of 

prosecution.” (Status Order 2:2-10, ECF No. 16.) Plaintiffs

failed to respond to the July 14, 2014 Order by this deadline. 

Therefore, the Court considers whether Defendant Hilton 

Sacramento Arden West should be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It 

is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a 

case for lack of prosecution.”).

Case 2:14-cv-00360-TLN-AC Document 20 Filed 09/05/14 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

2

When considering whether to dismiss a party for failure 

to prosecute, a court must consider:

(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 favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits.

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

The first and second factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal in this case since Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the 

action against Defendant Hilton Sacramento Arden West has 

impaired the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation and undermines the Court’s ability to manage its 

docket. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th 

Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation always favors dismissal.”); Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 

642 (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without 

being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants . . . .”).

The third factor concerning the risk of prejudice to 

Defendant Hilton Sacramento Arden West considers the strength of 

a party’s excuse for non-compliance. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 

642-43 (indicating “the risk of prejudice” is related to 

Plaintiffs’ reason for failing to prosecute). Since Plaintiffs

have provided no reason for their failure to prosecute the action 

against Defendant Hilton Sacramento Arden West, the third factor 

also favors dismissal. 

The fourth factor concerning whether the Court has 

considered less drastic sanctions, also weighs in favor of 

dismissal since Plaintiffs failed to prosecute this action 

Case 2:14-cv-00360-TLN-AC Document 20 Filed 09/05/14 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

3

against Defendant Hilton Sacramento Arden West despite the 

warning in the Status Order that Defendant Hilton Sacramento 

Arden West could be dismissed as a result. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[A] district 

court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s 

order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of 

alternatives’ requirement.”).

The fifth factor concerning the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits, weighs against dismissal. 

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of 

cases on the merits.”).

Since the balance of the factors strongly favors 

dismissal of Defendant Hilton Sacramento Arden West, that

defendant is dismissed.

Dated: September 4, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-00360-TLN-AC Document 20 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 3