N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FR ANC INE M C DER

M OTT, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. PALO VER

DE UNIFIED SC H OOL DISTR IC T, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56987 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-01112-VAP-OP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 3, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s and R AKOFF, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff Fra

nc ine M c De rm ott a

ppe a l s the de c i sion by

the distric t c ourt to dism iss he r c o m

pla int without pre

judic e for fa i lure to prose c ute pursua nt to Fe d. R
. 

# F IL ED F EB 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.C iv. P. 41(b), a s we ll a s to de ny he r m otion for re c onside rat ion. W e re vie w a distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of a n a c tion for fa ilure to prose c ute pursua nt to Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 41(b) for a

buse of disc re tion. Se e Al-Tork i v
. K ae mpe n , 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th C ir. 1996). Simila

rly , we re vie w a

distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion for
re c o nside ra tion for a

buse of disc re tion. S

e e Fire man’s Fund Ins. C o s. v . Alask

an Pride P’ship , 106 F.3d 1465, 1471 (9th C ir. 1997). Although the distric t c ourt dismisse d the c om p la int without pre

judic e , we have pre v iously

a pplie d to the re vie w of suc h a

dism issa l the sa

m e five fa c t ors tha

t we e m p loy to a sse ss dismissa l s for fa ilure to prose c ute with pre j udic e . Se e Ash v
. C v e tk ov , 739 F.2d 493, 496-97 (9th C i r. 1984). Signific a n t ly , howe v e r, “ dism issa l without pre

judic e is a

m ore e a sily

justifie d sa

nc t ion for fa i lure to prose c ute . A
re lative ly brie f pe riod of de la

y is suffic ie nt to justify

the distric t c ourt’ s se nding a litiga nt to theba c k of the line .” Ash , 739 F.2d a t 497. In this c a se , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t the ba la nc e of five fa c tors we ighe d a ga inst Pla intiff. Thedistric t c ourt’ s ne e d to
m ana ge its doc ke t a

nd the public inte re st in e xpe d itious re solution of litiga tion favor dismissa l , sinc e Pla intiff ha d inte rfe re d with thedistric t c o urt’ s a bility to
m ana ge its tria l c a le nda

r, an d a furthe r de la

y of the tria l would thwa

rt the public inte re s t in theprom

pt re solution of c a se s. As to therisk of pre judic e to De fe nda

n ts, 2though De fe nda nts ha d a lso sought c ontinua n c e s and m ay

have be e n re sponsible for som e de la

y , De fe n d ants we re pla inly pre judic e d by

Pla intiff’ s fa ilure to submit pre t ria l filings in a

tim e ly m anne r. Additionally , while the polic y fav oring disposition of c a s e s on the ir m e rits ge ne ra lly c uts a ga inst dism

issa l, se e W

ande re r v . J ohnston , 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th C ir. 1990), it doe s so fa r le ss strongly whe n the
re le va nt dismissa l is without pre judic e , whic h, by

de finition, perm its a re -filing within thea

pplic a b le sta t ute -of-lim ita

t ions pe riod (whic h ne i the r pa rty c o nte nds ha d run a t the tim e of dism issa l). As to theava ila

bility of le ss dra stic sa

n c tions, thedistric t c ourt c onside re d
m one ta ry sa nc t ions but e xpre sse d c onc e rn tha t the y would beine ffe c tive in induc i ng c om

plia nc e with de a dline s, give n the pa rtie s’ history
. Se e Malone v . U.S. Postal Se rv . , 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th C ir. 1987). M ore ove r, a dism issa l without pre j udic e is one of the lighte st sa nc tions a va ila ble
. In sum , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t the
c om pla i nt should be

dism isse d without pre

judic e for fa ilure to prose c ute . M ore o ve r, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Pla intiff’ s

3m otion for re c onside ration. The re fore , we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l without pre

judic e and de nia l of the m otion for re c onside ration. 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 W e a lso de ny

Pla intiff’ s re que st, file d on July 28, 2014, for this c ourt to take judic ia l notic e of c e rta i n m ate ria ls, inc luding e m a ils be twe e n Pla i ntiff’ s attorne y and de fe n se c ounse l, doc ke ts of othe r c a se s in whic h de fe nse c ounse l we re involve d, a

nd sta tistic a l inform ation a

bout c a se m ana ge m e nt in thefe de ra l judic ia l sy ste m . The se doc um e nts do not me e t the a pplic a ble sta nda rd for judic ia l notic e . W e note , howe ve r, tha

t ta king judic ia l notic e of the se m at e ria ls would not in a ny c a se a ffe c t the outc om e of this a ppe a l. 4