N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HENR Y C . QUAN; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-55185 D.C . No. 2:03-c v-02190-GAFAJWX
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 Gary A. Fe e ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, PAEZ, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s. He nry Qua n, Ange la C hu, Thom a s Da

nz e k, a nd O’ Ne il C arte r (“ Pla intiffs” )
a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s orde r dism issing the ir c a se with pre judic e for la c k of prose c ution. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED FEB 12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

te rm inating Pla intiffs' c a se for la c k of prose c ution e le v e n y e ars a fte r it wa s first file d in 2003. Se eMalone v . U.S. Postal Serv . , 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th C ir. 1987). Thec o urt prope rly a pplie d the N inth C irc uit’ s five -fa c tor te st for de t e rm i ning whe the r to dismiss a c a se for la c k of prose c ution. In re Eise n , 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th C ir. 1994). M ost im porta ntly , the c ourt found tha

t the a c tions of Pla intiffs’ c o unse l ha rm e d “ the public ’ s inte re s t in e xpe d i tious re solution of litiga tion” an d inte rfe re d with “ the
c ourt’ s ne e d to m ana ge its doc ke t.” Id. Pla intiffs’ c ounse l first file d a n e x pa rte re que st for a

c ontinua nc e of the Nove m be r 19, 2013 trial da

t e be c a use of he a l th issue s on Oc t obe r 10, 2013. The
c ourt gra nte d tha t re que s t a

n d c ontinue d

the tria l to Ja

nua ry 28, 2014, but e xpre ssly
warne d tha

t a ny future c ontinua

nc e re que sts would be

de nie d. The c o urt instruc te d Pla i ntiffs’ attorne y

to find substitute

c ounse l if his he a lth pre ve nte d him from try ing the c a s e : “ Le t m e be c le ar . . . . If this c a se doe sn’ t go to trial on the 28th of Ja nua ry , if som e body

isn’ t he re to a

nswe r re a dy , I will dism

iss thec a se for la c k of prose c ution, pe riod.” De spite this wa rning, on De c e m

be r 20, 2013, Pla intiffs’
c ounse l m a de a

se c ond e x pa

rte re que st to c ontinue the tria l to Fe brua ry 18, 2014,
c iting c ontinuing he a l th proble m s. Ye t Pla intiffs’ c ounse l a c knowle dge d tha t substitute c ounse l wa s not a c tua lly ava i la ble on Ja nua ry 28 or on Fe brua

ry 18,
22014. Give n tha t Pla intiffs’ c ounse l ignore d the distric t c ourt’ s c le ar warnings
re ga rding future c ontinua

n c e s, the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to dism i ss Pla intiffs’
c a se wa s not surprising Unde r the c i rc um s ta

nc e s a nd in light of the

distric t c ourt’ s intim ate fam ilia rity with thehistory

of the c a se , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dismissing Plai ntiffs’ c a se for la c k of prose c ution. AFFIRM E D.

3