Shields v. Dollar Tree, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT B. SHIELDS, individually and Case No.: 23-CV-925 JLS (BLM) on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 13 WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO v. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 14 PROCEDURE 41(b) DOLLAR TREE, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 As recounted in the Court’s January 16, 2024 Order (“Order,” ECF No. 15), which 18 the Court incorporates by reference here, Plaintiff Robert B. Shields has repeatedly failed 19 to meet deadlines in this case. In short, Plaintiff (1) failed to serve Defendant Dollar Tree, 20 Inc. in a timely manner as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), see ECF 21 No. 3; (2) neglected to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.,” ECF No. 7), 22 though the Court pointed out to the Parties that the Motion remained unopposed, see ECF 23 No. 11; (3) requested—without providing much of an excuse for further delay—an 24 extension of time to file an amended complaint several weeks after he learned such an 25 extension was needed, see ECF Nos. 13, 14; and (4) missed the extended deadline the Court 26 granted him, see Order at 2. Most recently, the Court sua sponte granted Plaintiff yet 27 another extension to file an amended complaint despite Plaintiff’s continued failure to meet 28 his deadlines or communicate with the Court. See id. at 2–3. 1 In granting the latest extension, the Court reminded Plaintiff that courts may dismiss 2 an action for failing to comply with a court order if a plaintiff fails to amend his complaint 3 after said complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Id. at 2 (citing Yourish v. Cal. 4 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)). The Court also warned Plaintiff that failure 5 to timely file his amended complaint—or communicate to the Court that he does not intend 6 to do so—in compliance with the Order would likely “result in the dismissal of this action 7 pursuant to [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 41(b).” Id. at 3. The Court explained 8 that, under Rule 41(b), such a dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits” unless 9 the Court specified otherwise. See id. at 2. 10 As Plaintiff has again failed to comply with the Court’s Order requiring him to file 11 an amended complaint, the Court proceeds to determine whether to dismiss Plaintiff’s case 12 under Rule 41(b). Before dismissing the action on that ground, the Court must weigh 13 several factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 14 [C]ourt’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant[]; (4) the 15 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 16 drastic sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Henderson 17 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). The first and fourth factors cut in 18 opposite directions. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious 19 resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 20 138 F.3d 393, 401 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating the fourth factor weighs against dismissal). The 21 Court thus considers the substance of factors two, three, and five. 22 As to the second factor, the Court notes Plaintiff—who is represented by counsel— 23 has received multiple opportunities to prosecute his case and ample warning from the Court 24 regarding the consequences of not doing so. The Court must manage its docket to ensure 25 the efficient provision of justice and cannot keep waiting for Plaintiff to act. Additionally, 26 Plaintiff has not tried to excuse his recent failures to timely file an amended complaint. 27 This factor thus weighs in favor of dismissal. See, e.g., Verdugo v. Cohen, 28 430 F. App’x 592, 593 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal where a court dismissed a 1 complaint “with leave to amend, warned [the plaintiff] that failure to amend would result 2 in dismissal of his action, and provided him with ample opportunity to submit a second 3 amended complaint, but [the plaintiff] failed to do so”). 4 The third factor, which considers the prejudice to a defendant that results from a 5 plaintiff’s inaction, also favors dismissal. See Malone v. U.S.P.S., 833 F.2d 128, 131 6 (9th Cir. 1987). Under this factor, “the risk of prejudice . . . is related to [Plaintiff’s] reason 7 for defaulting in failing to timely amend.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Where, as here, a 8 plaintiff fails to provide any excuse for his conduct or contact the Court regarding said 9 failure, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. See, e.g., Enders v. Countrywide Home 10 Loans, Inc., No. C 09-3213SBA, 2009 WL 4018512, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009). 11 In assessing the fifth factor, “the Court considers whether alternatives less drastic 12 than dismissal are feasible given the circumstances of the case.” Toussaint v. Dronenburg, 13 No. 23-CV-0256-BAS-WVG, 2023 WL 5353684, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2023). And 14 notably, “a district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will 15 result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Ferdik v. 16 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33), as 17 amended (May 22, 1992). In this case, the Court has repeatedly warned Plaintiff that failure 18 to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal of the entire action. See ECF No. 12 19 at 4; ECF No. 14 at 4; Order at 4. And the Court’s last warning explicitly cautioned 20 Plaintiff that said dismissal would take the form of a Rule 41(b) sanction. See id. This 21 factor thus also favors dismissal. 22 CONCLUSION 23 Finding that the Ghazali factors and the circumstances of this case weigh heavily in 24 favor of dismissal, the Court DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 25 Rule 41(b) based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order. See, e.g., Edwards 26 v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff . . . to 27 respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to 28 the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with . . . a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); see 1 || also Wilson v. Mount Diablo Unified Sch. Dist., No. 18-CV-03973-JD, 2018 WL 4373056, 2 || at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2018) (dismissing action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) 3 || for “plaintiff's failure to amend his complaint in a timely manner”). As this concludes the 4 || litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 ||Dated: January 24, 2024 psi L. Lo meeaitie- 7 on. Janis L. Sammartino 3 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28