UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 23, 2011
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Joseph Remigio None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): COURT ORDER DISMISSING FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER
On November 8, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff Gerald Egbase ("Plaintiff") to file an amended complaint by November 22, 2011. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint by that date may result in dismissal without prejudice. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.
It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff's action because of his or her failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court). Dismissal, however, should not be entered unless a plaintiff has been notified that dismissal is imminent. See West Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1523 (9th Cir. 1990).
In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with court orders, a district court should 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 sanctions. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260--61 (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1985)).
Taking all of the above factors into account, dismissal for failure to comply with a court order is appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with a court
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.