Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01513/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01513-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Seth Arellano
Plaintiff
City of Hanford
Defendant
Bertha Hernandez
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SETH ARELLANO, a minor, by and through 

his Guardian Ad Litem, BERTHA 

HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF HANFORD, and DOES 1 through 

10, 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01513-SMS

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH 

PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ continued refusal to obey court orders. For the 

reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice and direct the Clerk of Court to 

close the case. 

I. BACKGROUND

Under the Court’s scheduling order, issued January 28, 2016, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)1

initial disclosures were due February 19, 2016. Doc. 19. On March 16, 2016, Defendant City of 

Hanford filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ initial disclosures and for monetary sanctions. Doc. 

21. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. On April 20, 2016, the Court issued an order directing 

Plaintiffs to serve complete initial disclosures no later than May 20, 2016, and granted in part the 

request for monetary sanctions. Doc. 27. 

 

1

 All statutory references are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless stated otherwise. 

Case 1:15-cv-01513-SMS Document 36 Filed 09/01/16 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

Less than two months later, on June 9, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for terminating and 

monetary sanctions based on Plaintiffs’ failure to obey the Court’s April 20, 2016 order. Doc. 28.

Again, Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. In an order dated July 27, 2016, the Court granted in 

part the request for monetary sanctions, but denied the request for terminating sanctions. The Court 

reasoned that the circumstances warranted giving Plaintiffs an opportunity to show cause, and a

hearing was scheduled for August 24, 2016. The Court cautioned Plaintiffs that failure to timely 

comply with the order would result in dismissal of this case. Doc. 34. Plaintiffs did not appear at 

the hearing. 

In light of Plaintiff’s refusal to obey the Court’s scheduling and subsequent orders, it will 

now consider the imposition of terminating sanctions, namely dismissal of this action in whole. 

II. ANALYSIS

Rule 16 states in relevant part: “[T]he court may issue any just orders, including those 

authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney . . . (C) fails to obey a scheduling 

or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).2 Rule 37 provides in relevant part: 

If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, 

including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the 

action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include . . .

(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). With regard to dismissal, the Ninth Circuit has:

constructed a five-part test, with three subparts to the fifth part, to 

determine whether a case-dispositive sanction under Rule 37(b)(2) is 

just: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 

the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 

party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. 

The sub-parts of the fifth factor are whether the court has considered 

lesser sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the 

recalcitrant party about the possibility of case-dispositive sanctions. 

 

2

 Also applicable here is Local Rule 110, which states: “Failure 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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”

Case 1:15-cv-01513-SMS Document 36 Filed 09/01/16 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

Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(internal quotations and footnotes omitted). Notably, “[t]his test is not mechanical. It provides the 

district court with a way to think about what to do, not a set of conditions precedent for sanctions or 

a script that the district court must follow[.]” Id.

As stated in the July 27, 2016 order, the first and second factors weigh in favor of 

Defendant, but the third and fourth factors weigh in favor of Plaintiffs. That continues to hold true. 

The Court’s decision therefore turns on the fifth factor. 

Plaintiff’s noncompliance began with the scheduling order and, despite the imposition of 

monetary sanctions, continued with the Court’s April 20, 2016 order. Nonetheless, the Court gave

Plaintiffs an opportunity to appear and explain why this case should not be dismissed, and warned 

that noncompliance would result in dismissal. See Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 

(9th Cir. 1987) (“the case law suggests that warning a plaintiff that failure to obey a court order will 

result in dismissal can suffice to meet the [less drastic sanctions] requirement”) (internal quotations 

and citations omitted). But, still, Plaintiffs persisted. Their noncompliance and silence leaves the 

Court with only the option of dismissal. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 

and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01513-SMS Document 36 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3