United States District Court, D. Nevada
M Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
The Court's Need to Manage its Docket
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.
Risk of Prejudice to Defendant
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
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
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