Court Opinion

ID: 9495050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:53:23.591824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:47.343495
License: Public Domain

TROTT, Circuit Judge
Concurring:
I write separately only to assure our Chief Judge that we in the majority are not “preoccupied” with the standard of *644review that governs the outcome of this appeal. Additionally, we have not “lost sight” of anything, much less our responsibility as judges. We simply see this case differently at a time when the need of the district court in the Central District of California to manage its huge caseload has never been greater. With as many as six vacancies gone unattended by the political branches of our government for far too long, our trial courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rales and requirements of our courts. Here, Pagtalunan is responsible for inexcusable delay, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to prosecute. In my view, the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon the size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our beleaguered trial judges. That factor weighs heavily in this case. Accordingly, and with all respect to our esteemed Chief Judge, I cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion; and I concur in Judge Rawlinson’s opinion.