Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. The court concluded that the relevant factors favored dismissal after Plaintiff failed to properly respond to an order to show cause or pursue default-related remedies.
Holdings
- A district court may exercise its inherent docket-control authority to impose sanctions, including dismissal, when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the action or comply with a court order.
- Dismissal without prejudice was warranted because the Pagtalunan factors, considered together, favored dismissal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's order to show cause.
- Whether the relevant five-factor dismissal analysis favored dismissal without prejudice.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (8)
- Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- Ewing v. Ruano, No. 09-8471, 2012 WL 2138159, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2012)(followed)
- Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- Yong Koo v. Portillo, No. 19-6318, 2020 WL 10313717, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2020)(followed)
- Kyu Hwa Back v. Jose Gonzalez, No. 19-8974, 2020 WL 4018813, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…