Hospice by the Sea, Ltd v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed due to a lack of legal representation, and the plaintiff failed to respond by the deadline. The court dismissed the case without prejudice and terminated all pending motions as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice“Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court had previously issued a show cause order requiring the plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and Local Rule 83.3(j). The plaintiff failed to respond to this order by the deadline. Under Local Rule 83.1(a) and the Ninth Circuit precedent cited, a district court has the inherent power and authority to dismiss an action for failure to comply with court orders or local rules. Therefore, the dismissal follows logically from the plaintiff's failure to respond to the show cause order. |
Termination of pending motions as moot“All pending motions TERMINATED as moot.” | agree with court Because the underlying action was dismissed, any motions pending within that action are no longer relevant to the disposition of the case and are therefore moot. This is a standard procedural consequence of dismissing the entire case. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural basis for dismissal: the plaintiff's failure to respond to a show cause order regarding its lack of legal representation. It cites the appropriate local rule (83.1(a)) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Hells Canyon) to support the court's inherent power to dismiss for non-compliance with court orders. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on a party's failure to respond to a court order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No.: 24-cv-01529-DMS-DEB HOSPICE BY THE SEA, LTD, 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 12 v. 13 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 On January 28, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the cause should 18 not be dismissed because “it appears that Plaintiff is not a natural person and is not 19 represented by an attorney permitted to practice” in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and Local 20 Rule 83.3(j). (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff did not respond by the deadline of February 6, 2026. 21 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with the district’s Local 22 Rules or a court order. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 23 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (providing “courts may dismiss under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 24 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances”); S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.1(a) 25 (providing that failure “to comply with these rules . . . or with any order of the Court may 26 be grounds for imposition by the Court of . . . sanctions authorized by statute or rule or 27 within the inherent power of the Court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any 28 actions”). 1 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. All pending motions 2 TERMINATED as moot. (See ECF Nos. 9, 12.) The Clerk of the Court is directed to 3 close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: February 9, 2026 2» for, Yn « L4\ Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28