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.

Dominguez v. Aria Resort & Casino Las Vegas

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 26, 2017

ELIZABETH DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
ARIA RESORT & CASINO LAS VEGAS, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Gloria M Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court.

         Pending before the Court is the case of Dominguez v. Aria Resort and Casino, (2:15-cv-1437-GMN-GWF). On December 23, 2016, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff Elizabeth Dominguez's (“Plaintiff's”) Complaint. (ECF No. 24). In that Order, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint on or before January 6, 2017, to correct deficiencies in two of its claims. (Id.). However, Plaintiff has since failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension of time to do so. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

         I. DISCUSSION

         In its prior Order, the Court ruled that Plaintiff failed to show that the Court had jurisdiction in this case. (Id. at 3:8-13). Despite the Court's granting leave for Plaintiff to provide evidence of Defendant Aria Resort & Casino Las Vegas's (“Defendant's”) citizenship, Plaintiff has failed to take any action whatsoever in this case.

         The Court is at a loss in cases, such as this one, in which a plaintiff fails to participate in the judicial process and does not pursue its claims or even request an extension. However, the Court has an obligation to promote justice by allocating judicial resources to cases with ongoing disputes and active parties.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows for the dismissal of an action based on a party's failure to obey an order of the Court.[1] The Ninth Circuit has specifically held that this rule may be applied when a plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint pursuant to a court-ordered deadline. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order the district court must weigh five factors including: (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 alternatives.” Id. at 1260-61; see also Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court will consider each of these factors in turn.

         1. Public Interest

         The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that “the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). In this case, Plaintiff has not only failed to file an amended complaint pursuant to the Court's explicit deadline, but has also failed to request an extension or explain its failure to the Court. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

         2. The Court's Need to Manage its Docket

         The delays caused by Plaintiff's failure to amend its claims have already consumed time and resources that the Court could have devoted to other cases. The Court's resources are best allocated to actions with active parties seeking to resolve their claims under the law. Thus, this factor also weighs in favor of dismissal.

         3. Risk of Prejudice to Defendant

         The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the risk of prejudice must be considered with reference to “the plaintiff's reason for defaulting.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. However in this matter, Plaintiff has not offered any explanation for its failure to comply with the Court's order.

         In its prior Order, the Court clearly identified the jurisdictional deficiencies in Plaintiff's claim that she could attempt to correct in an amended complaint. (Order 3:8-13, ECF No. 24). Rather than simply revise its Complaint to correct these deficiencies, Plaintiff has taken no action in this case whatsoever.

         “Unnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses' memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. Considering Plaintiff's ongoing failure to file an amended complaint without offering an explanation, the Court finds that the ...


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.