Albert Yum v. American Express Travel Related Service Company Inc., et al.

Yum · United States District Court for the Central District of California · November 21, 2025 · No. 8:25-cv-02102 FMO (DFMx)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Albert Yum’s action against American Express Travel Related Service Company Inc. and others without prejudice. The court found that Plaintiff failed to comply with an order requiring an amended in forma pauperis request or payment of the filing fee and an amended complaint, and applied the Ninth Circuit’s factors for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Writing for the Court
Fernando M. Olguin
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Decision date
November 21, 2025
Docket number
8:25-cv-02102 FMO (DFMx)
Procedural posture
The district court dismissed the action without prejudice after Plaintiff failed to comply with an order requiring an amended in forma pauperis request or payment of the filing fee and an amended complaint.
Standard of review
A district court may dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order, after considering the five dismissal factors identified by the Ninth Circuit.
Precedential value
unknown
Parties
Albert Yum v. American Express Travel Related Service Company Inc., et al.
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

sanctionscivil procedureconsumer protection

Practice areas

civil procedureconsumer protection

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order.

Holdings

  1. A district court may dismiss an action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, provided the court considers the five relevant dismissal factors and the factors support dismissal.

Key quotations

“[I]n order for a court to dismiss a case as a sanction, the district court must consider five factors: ‘(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 alternatives.’” (unpaginated)
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice. (unpaginated)

Factual background

Plaintiff brought an Equal Credit Opportunity Act action concerning the denial of a credit card application and sought to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered him to explain how he paid his average monthly expenses or pay the filing fee, and to amend his complaint to allege how his application was denied. Plaintiff did none of these things within 30 days.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a complaint under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court postponed ruling on that request, ordered Plaintiff to provide additional financial information or pay the filing fee, and ordered an amended complaint addressing how his credit card application was denied. After Plaintiff failed to comply within the ordered 30-day period, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…