Case Name: REACHLOCAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PPC CLAIM LIMITED, a British limited company; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-22
Citations: 713 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 16-56644
Parties: REACHLOCAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PPC CLAIM LIMITED, a British limited company; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
REACHLOCAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PPC CLAIM LIMITED, a British limited company; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56644
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 22, 2018
Paul Fricke, I, Esquire, Amjad Mah-mood Khan, Attorney, Rowennakete Paul Barnes, Esquire, Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Kieran Paul Cassidy, Pro Se
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P, 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
ReachLocal, Inc. appeals from the district court's order dismissing sua sponte for failure to prosecute ReachLocal's diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992), and we reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed ReachLocal's action for failure to prosecute at a status conference attended by counsel for both parties. In doing so, the district court abused its discretion because it failed to warn ReachLocal of the possibility of dismissal, and did not consider less drastic alternatives. See id. at 273-74.
We deny ReachLocal's request for reassignment to a different district judge on remand. See Krechman v. County, of Riverside, 723 F.3d 1104, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth factors warranting reassignment).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.