United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is the matter of Abet Justice LLC v.
First America Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC et al.,
case number 2:14-cv-00908-JCM-GWF.
court has repeatedly ordered the parties to file a proposed
joint pretrial order. (See ECF Nos. 146, 153, 158).
Pursuant to the scheduling order, joint pretrial orders were
originally due by September 28, 2015. (ECF No. 47). The court
has granted countless motions and stipulations to extend the
dispositive motions deadline, which, in turn, have extended
the joint pretrial order deadline. The joint pretrial order
deadline has been extended nearly two years from the original
deadline. Despite these orders and countless extensions
granted, the parties have, again, failed to timely comply.
19, 2017, the court ordered the parties to file a joint
pretrial order by May 26, 2017, or show cause in writing why
the parties were unable to reach an agreement. (ECF No. 153).
Defendant Sunridge Heights (the “HOA”) filed a
response (ECF No. 154), as did defendants Bank of New York
Mellon (“BNYM”) and First America Trustee
Servicing Solutions, LLC (“FATSS”) (ECF No. 155).
In essence, defendants assert that they have been unable to
agree with plaintiff on the specific language in the joint
pretrial order and that they have presented plaintiff with
numerous drafts, all of which were rejected. (ECF Nos. 154,
than filing a response to show cause, pro se
plaintiff Guetatchew Fikrou elected to file an individual
pretrial order, which was falsely titled as a “proposed
joint pretrial order, ” wherein plaintiff attached
defendants' proposed draft with his handwritten edits
thereon. (ECF No. 156).
14, 2017, the court entered an order finding that Local Rule
16-4 adequately addressed the parties' disagreements over
specific language. (ECF No. 158). Thus, the court struck
plaintiff's noncompliant pretrial order and ordered the
parties to meet and confer and file, by June 28, 2017, a
proposed joint pretrial order in accordance with the
applicable local and federal rules-specifically, LR 16-3 and
LR 16-4. (ECF No. 158).
same order, the court cautioned that failure to timely comply
with the filing of a proposed joint pretrial order may result
in sanctions and/or dismissal, citing to Ready Transp.,
Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir.
2010), for the proposition that “the inherent powers
permit a district court to go as far as to dismiss entire
actions to rein in abusive conduct.” (ECF No. 158).
date, the parties have not filed a proposed joint pretrial
order as ordered by the court, and the period to do so has
since passed. On June 30, 2017, the HOA filed a response to
the court's June 14th order, setting forth the reasons
for its noncompliance. (ECF No. 159). In particular, the HOA
asserts that despite dozens of proposed drafts and attempts
to meet plaintiff's demands, defendants have been unable
to draft a joint pretrial order that plaintiff would sign.
(ECF No. 159). The HOA further asserts that “[e]ven
after cutting and pasting language that [plaintiff] wanted in
the joint pretrial order and labelling it as disputed by the
parties, [plaintiff] still would not agree to sign the final
draft.” (ECF No. 159 at 3 (capitalizations omitted)).
same date, defendants FATSS, RCS, and BNYM, collectively,
filed a response to the court's June 14th order,
asserting that plaintiff has refused to sign the most recent
working draft of the joint pretrial order and attaching,
inter alia, email correspondences between the
parties. (ECF No. 160).
light of the numerous extensions granted and the repeated
failures to comply with the court's orders, dismissal of
the instant action without prejudice in this instant order
would be appropriate. The United States Supreme Court has long
held that it is within a trial court's inherent power to
dismiss an action for failure to comply with the court's
orders, as well as for failure to prosecute. See,
e.g., Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892
(2016) (“This Court has also held that district courts
have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and
courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient
resolution of cases.”); Link v. Wabash R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962) (“[W]hen circumstances make
such action appropriate, a District Court may dismiss a
complaint for failure to prosecute even without affording
notice of its intention to do so or providing an adversary
hearing before acting.”); Ready Transp., Inc.,
627 F.3d at 404. “The power to invoke this sanction is
necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition
of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of
the District Courts.” Link, 370 U.S. at
because policy favors the disposition of cases on the merits,
the court will afford the parties one last opportunity to
file a proposed joint pretrial order that complies with LR
16-3 and LR 16-4. Again, while the court acknowledges that
plaintiff is pro se, he is nonetheless bound by the
same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See
King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)
(“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants.”); see also
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“Although we construe pleadings liberally in their
favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of
procedure.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790
F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[P]ro
se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be
treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of
parties are hereby notified that plaintiff's failure to
cooperate with defendants in preparing and filing a timely
proposed joint pretrial order will result in dismissal of
plaintiff's complaint, leaving the counterclaims pending.
While policy favors deciding cases on the merits, it is the
responsibility of the moving party to move towards that
disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from
dilatory and evasive tactics. Morris v. Morgan Stanley
& Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991).
the parties assert that they have been unable to agree on
specific language in their drafts, Local Rule 16-4
sufficiently remedies their problem. Specifically, Local Rule
16-4 provides that “[s]hould the attorneys or parties
be unable to agree on the statement of issues of fact [and/or
the statement of issues of law], the joint pretrial order
should include separate statements of issues of fact [and/or
statements of issues of law] to be tried and determined upon
trial.” LR 16-4 n.1, n.2. In light of Local Rule 16-4,
the court finds that it is well within the parties'
capabilities to prepare and file a proposed joint pretrial
order in accordance with the applicable local and federal
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before Monday, July 17, 2017,
the parties shall prepare and file, within fourteen (14) days
of the entry of this order, a proposed joint pretrial order
that complies with LR 16-3 and LR 16-4.
FURTHER ORDERED that failure to timely comply with this order
will result in sanctions-specifically, the dismissal of the
complaint without ...