Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02046/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02046-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramiro Cerda
Plaintiff
Alessia Giacobino
Defendant
Jacinto Romero
Plaintiff
Yo No Fui Clothing
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACINTO ROMERO, an individual; and 

RAMIRO CERDA, an individual d/b/a Yo No 

Fui Clothing, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALESSIA GIACOBINO, and individual; and 

DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-02046-DAD-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE DENIED 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 

SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

OBJECTIONS DUE: 14 DAYS

(Doc. 26)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Jacinto Romero and Ramiro Cerda (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint on December 

16, 2013, for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin. 

(Doc. 1.) Defendant Alessia Giacobino was served with a copy of the complaint on March 26, 

2014, with an answer to the complaint due April 16, 2014. (Doc. 5.) The clerk entered default 

against Defendant on August 29, 2014 (Doc. 11), and Plaintiffs filed their first Motion for Default 

Judgment on November 13, 2014 (Doc. 15).

Because Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment was set for submission without a hearing, 

Plaintiffs requested a hearing to determine damages pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 55(b)(2), which 

was set for January 14, 2015. (Docs. 16; 17.) As Defendant resides in Italy, Plaintiffs were 

unable to serve Defendant with notice of the hearing and Plaintiffs requested the hearing be 

rescheduled to allow them sufficient time to effect service. (Doc. 18.) The hearing was vacated 

Case 1:13-cv-02046-DAD-SKO Document 31 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 4
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

and reset to June 17, 2015 -- a five-month extension of time. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiffs initiated service 

on the Defendant in Italy on April 27, 2015, and requested a further continuance of the hearing to 

determine damages. (Doc. 20.) The hearing was reset to August 12, 2015. (Doc. 21.) 

On June 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their “Notice Regarding International Service of Process,” 

confirming that international service had commenced upon Defendant of the notice of the August 

12, 2015, hearing to determine damages. (Doc. 22.) On July 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a “Notice 

Regarding International Service of Process and Request to Reschedule Hearing to Determine 

Damages,” requesting the hearing be reset for some time in November 2015. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiffs 

explained that Defendant has moved to a new Italian city, and “[u]pon notice of a rescheduled 

hearing date, Plaintiffs will take necessary steps to locate and serve the [D]efendant.” (Doc. 15.) 

On July 29, 2015, after twice rescheduling the Hearing to Determine Damages (Docs. 19; 

21), the Court denied Plaintiffs’ third request to reschedule the hearing to determine damages and 

denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 24.) On February 2, 

2016, Plaintiffs refiled their Motion for Default Judgment, and represented to the Court they were 

now in possession of Defendant’s current address and able to accomplish international service of 

upon Defendant. (Doc. 26.) After again requesting a continuance to accomplish international 

service complying with requirements imposed by the Hague Convention (Docs. 28; 29), a Hearing 

to Determine Damages was set for July 27, 2016, and Plaintiffs were ordered to serve Defendant 

with Notice of the hearing on damages and the Motion for Default Judgment by no later than June 

29, 2016. (Doc. 30.) 

Plaintiffs were further ordered to file their proof of service with this Court by no later than 

July 8, 2016, and cautioned that should Plaintiffs fail to file proof of service by the deadlines set 

by the Court, the motion would be denied and the case would be recommended for dismissal for 

failure to prosecute. (Doc. 30.) No proof of service was filed on July 8, 2016. (See Docket.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Local Rule 110 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 the imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to 

Case 1:13-cv-02046-DAD-SKO Document 31 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 4
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

control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including, 

where appropriate . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.1988) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiff to keep court apprised of 

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for 

failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 

order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider 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 defendant; (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 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831); Henderson, 

779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 

53. “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” 

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 

1999)).

Here, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 

the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 

prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises 

from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 

a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 

Case 1:13-cv-02046-DAD-SKO Document 31 Filed 07/13/16 Page 3 of 4
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

satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 

F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s March 9, 2016, minute order expressly 

ordered Plaintiffs to file proof of service by July 8, 2016, and warned that failure to file such proof 

of service would result in denial of the motion and recommendation to the district judge that the 

case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 30.) Thus, Plaintiffs had adequate warning that 

sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the case, would result from their noncompliance with 

the Court’s March 9, 2016, order.

Because Plaintiffs have not filed any proof of service, the Court has no information 

whether Defendant has been served. Despite the Court’s repeated admonitions (Docs. 24; 30), 

Plaintiffs have demonstrated they are unable or unwilling to proceed with prosecuting their case. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 110 and the Court’s inherent power to sanction, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default 

Judgment (Doc. 26) be DENIED and this case be DISMISSED with prejudice for failing to 

comply with the Court’s March 9, 2016, order.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen

(14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. 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: July 13, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02046-DAD-SKO Document 31 Filed 07/13/16 Page 4 of 4