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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 On February 2, 2016, Plaintiffs Nawwar Alo and Haifaa Ibrahim commenced the 

instant action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. against 

Defendants Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, Michael and Jane Doe Debenon, All Assisted 

Living LLC, Cipriano and Jane Doe Ionutescu, Louis and Jane Doe Cohen, Carmine and 

Jane Doe Freda, Sherri and Jane Doe Lopez, and Michael and Jane Doe Lu. (Doc. 1.) 

 For the following reasons, this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 

comply with the Court’s Orders. 

I. Background 

 A. Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC and Debenon 

 In March 2016, Plaintiffs filed proof of service declaring that service on 

Defendants Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, Michael Debenon, and Jane Doe Debenon had 

been effected. (Docs. 6-8.) No timely answers were filed, and the Court issued orders 

calling Plaintiffs to show cause as to why these parties should not be dismissed for failure 

to prosecute. (Docs. 11, 24.) In response, Plaintiffs moved for entry of default pursuant to 

Nawwar Alo, et al., 

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

The Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-16-00300-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 45 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Following entry of default by the 

Clerk of Court however, they took no further action against these defendants. The Court 

then again ordered Plaintiffs to show cause for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 36.) Instead of 

moving for default judgment, in May 2016, counsel responded by advising the Court that 

his clients were traveling outside of the country until June 2016, and would be “unable to 

assist in aiding their counsel in preparing the necessary filings to move the Court for 

default judgment” at that time. (Doc. 37.) To date, Plaintiffs have not moved for default 

judgment or taken any other action against these defendants. 

B. All Assisted Living, LLC and Ionutescu 

 In response to a separate order issued in April 2016, Plaintiffs informed the Court 

that service had also been accomplished in March 2016 on Defendants All Assisted 

Living, LLC, Cipriano Ionutescu, and Jane Doe Ionutescu. (Docs. 21, 23.) No timely 

answer was filed by those defendants, and the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why 

those defendants should not be dismissed. (Doc. 38.) In response, Plaintiffs moved for 

entry of default. Counsel further advised the Court that his clients were out of the country 

and that he would be unable to move for default judgment until they returned. (Doc. 40.) 

To date, Plaintiffs have not moved for default judgment or taken any action against these 

defendants. 

C. Cohen, Freda, Lopez, and Lu 

 In April 2016, the Court called Plaintiffs to show cause as to why Defendants 

Louis and Jane Doe Cohen, Carmine and Jane Doe Freda, Sherri and Jane Doe Lopez, 

and Michael and Jane Doe Lu should not be dismissed for failure to accomplish service 

on them. (Doc. 32.) After seeking extension of time to do so, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit 

in June 2016, indicating that service had been accomplished on these defendants by 

publication in May 2016. (Doc. 44.) No answer has been filed to date, and as with the 

other defendants in this action, no other action has been taken by Plaintiffs. 

II. Dismissal 

 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the plaintiff 

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 45 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 

dismiss the action or any claim against it.” The district court also has the inherent power 

to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, for failure to comply with court 

orders, or for failure to follow the local rules. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 

626, 629-31 (1962) (recognizing that even though the language of Rule 41(b) requires a 

motion, the district court has sua sponte power to dismiss for failure to prosecute); 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to comply with local rules is a 

proper ground for dismissal); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (1992) (a district 

court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with an order of the court); Wanderer v. 

Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether dismissal is 

appropriate, the Court weighs “(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 

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (citation omitted). 

 Having considered the five factors here, the Court concludes that dismissal is 

warranted. While public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, see 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002), this factor is outweighed by 

Plaintiffs’ repeated failure to prosecute this action in any meaningful and timely manner, 

compounded by their noncompliance with the Court’s Orders. This case remains 

indefinitely stalled, and Plaintiffs’ ongoing inaction demonstrates that dismissal is 

warranted; undertaking any lesser measure would be unavailing. The Court declines to 

take further steps to prompt Plaintiffs into taking some piecemeal action. See Link, 370 

U.S. at 629-30 (a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to 

prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the 

calendars of the district courts); Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1452 

(9th Cir. 1994) (“the failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify a 

dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant from the 

failure”) (internal quotation omitted). While dismissal itself is a drastic sanction, see 

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 45 Filed 07/18/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260, dismissal without prejudice is available and appropriate in this 

case. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute and comply with the Court’s Orders. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 18th day of July, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 45 Filed 07/18/16 Page 4 of 4