UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 9, 2012
TITLE: JOHN JAN SLAVIK
JAROSLAV MATEJOVSKY, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
PRESENT: HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Rita Sanchez None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On September 18, 2012, the Court granted with leave to amend the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court (the "Motion") filed by Defendants Ronald A. Schoen, Jackie Barnett Sr. and Mike McCarron. (Docket No. 14). Plaintiff John Jan Slavik had not filed any opposition.
The Court permitted Slavik to file an amended complaint within 14 days and warned that "[f]iling the amended complaint late -- by even one day -- may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice." (Id.)
The deadline for Slavik to file an amended complaint was October 2, 2012. Slavik to date has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court's September 18 Order.
The Court finds that Slavik's failure to oppose the Motion and to file an amended complaint constitutes failure to prosecute and to comply with court rules and orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) ("In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits."); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989-92 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining factors supporting dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute).
Because Slavik failed to follow the Court's directives and rules aimed at the timely prosecution of his case, the Court concludes that the Pagtalunan factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action with prejudice. Slavik's failure to engage in the litigation he initiated hampers expeditious resolution of litigation and inhibits the Court's ability to manage its docket. Slavik has had various opportunities to prosecute this case such that a dismissal with prejudice does not unfairly impact his rights. See Local Rule 41-1.
Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and to comply with court rules and orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.