Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Prien v. Trask

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 20, 2015

AMY PRIEN, Plaintiff,
v.
GROVER TRASK, RANDALL TAGAMI, RON E. COFFEE, KEVIN RUDDY, MICHELE DONNA LEVINE, ALLISON NELSON, LARRY SMITH, BOB DOYLE, JOSEPH I. COHEN, CHARLES WILHITE, JOHN WYATT, BRYAN APPELHOF, WYLAND PEAK, BILL DAVIES, LEE COFFEY, and ten unknown named persons, Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)

RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior District Judge.

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Response [52] to the Court's Order to Show Cause [48], which required Plaintiff to show cause as to why this Action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute her claims.

Having reviewed all papers pertaining to the Order to Show Cause [48] and Plaintiff's Response [52], the Court DISMISSES this Action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) due to Plaintiff's unreasonable failure to prosecute this Action and repeated noncompliance with Court orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Amy Prien ("Plaintiff") brought this Action [1] in September 2005. On April 26, 2006, the Court issued a stay [38] of the case until the conclusion of Plaintiff's related criminal prosecution. In the Order Staying Case [38], the Court ordered the parties "to report to the court the occurrences of that event fourteen days thereof and the status of the action." On July 17, 2006, the Court issued an Order [39] removing the case from the Court's active caseload and ordering only Plaintiff to "file semi-annual status reports commencing on September 1, 2006."

On September 1, 2006, Defendants filed a Status Report [40], but Plaintiff did not. Plaintiff has since continued to disobey the Court's Order [39] by failing to file even a single status report.

On November 7, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Request to Lift Stay [42], which was denied [44] on November 27, 2006, because Plaintiff's criminal prosecution had not yet concluded due to Plaintiff's pending direct appeal of her criminal conviction. Plaintiff's Request to Lift Stay, filed in November 2006, was the last action taken by Plaintiff until Plaintiff's April 22, 2015, Request [49] for an extension of time to respond to the Order to Show Cause.

On February 17, 2015, the Court issued an Order [46] requiring the parties to file a status report by March 9, 2015. The Order [46] clearly stated that "[f]ailure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action and/or sanctions."

On March 9, 2015, Defendants filed a timely Status Report [47]. Plaintiff did not file anything by the deadline, thereby violating a third Court order. Defendants' Status Report [47] informed the Court that Plaintiff's criminal prosecution became final on September 27, 2007.[1] Ferguson Decl. ΒΆ 8, Ex. 1.

On April 17, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal [48], requiring Plaintiff to show cause in writing by April 24, 2015, why this Action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's lack of prosecution. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiff responded [49] with a request for an extension of time to respond to the Order to Show Cause. The Court granted [50] Plaintiff's request, ordering Plaintiff to respond by June 1, 2015. On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Response [52] to the Order to Show Cause.

Rather than "show cause" as to why Plaintiff's egregious lack of prosecution should not result in the dismissal of this Action, Plaintiff's Response [52], instead, blames the Court for Plaintiff's seven-plus years of silence. Pl.'s Resp. to OSC ("Pl.'s Resp.") 2:11-15, ECF No. 52 (stating that after Plaintiff's filing in November 2006, "[t]hereafter and for over eight years[, ] the Court took no action in this case").

Plaintiff argues that her case should not be dismissed because this Action "is and always has been a viable action" and "was made inactive over plaintiff's objection and then placed on the Court's inactive case list, " and because "[n]either the Court nor defendants have been prejudiced by the delay, although plaintiff has been prejudiced."[2] Pl.'s Resp. 2:17-24. Finally, Plaintiff concludes that "there is no basis on which to dismiss the action." Id.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.