173D Airborne Brigade Association v. Caleb Geller, 2:23-cv-10076

Plaintiff 173D Airborne Brigade Association sued Caleb and Michael Geller on Nov. 30, 2023 for fiduciary breach, fraud, conversion, and money had and received.
Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a dispositive-motion deadline and multiple pretrial deadlines culminating in an August 26, 2025 trial date; the parties did not comply with those pretrial deadlines.
Michael Geller filed for bankruptcy; the automatic stay was held to apply only to Michael Geller, so the case could proceed against other parties (including Caleb) while Michael’s stay remained in effect.
Counsel for defendants moved to withdraw; withdrawal was granted as to Caleb only; the case then proceeded with active parties but without further filings or communications from Plaintiff’s counsel for roughly a year.
Plaintiff and Caleb’s counsel failed to appear at the final pretrial conference on August 5, 2025; the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) directing Plaintiff to explain by Aug. 13, 2025 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; Plaintiff did not respond.
After the OSC deadline and after vacating the trial date, the Court applied the Ninth Circuit five-factor test and concluded dismissal for failure to prosecute was warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate	No response to OSC; no justification provided	Defendants (and court) asserted docket control and prejudice from delay	Court concluded dismissal appropriate and warranted
Whether prejudice to defendants is shown/presumable	Plaintiff offered no rebuttal	Delay and year-long silence support presumed prejudice	Court presumed prejudice from unreasonable delay
Whether less drastic sanctions would suffice	No proposals or engagement from Plaintiff	Court tried OSC to avoid dismissal; no compliance	Court found lesser sanctions unlikely to be effective
Whether public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs dismissal	No showing that merits disposition would be served	Defendants relied on case management interests	Court held policy in favor of merits is outweighed by Plaintiff’s abandonment and failure to prosecute

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1998) (district courts have inherent power to control dockets and impose sanctions)
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts may dismiss sua sponte for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b))
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (five-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal appropriate where party fails to comply with court orders)
In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (prejudice may be presumed from unreasonable delay)
Moore v. Teflon Commc’ns Corp., 589 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1978) (delay can support presumption of prejudice)
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal)