Latanya Williams v. J Lorraine LLC
2:25-cv-01213
| C.D. Cal. | May 20, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Latanya Williams filed a lawsuit against Lorraine LLC and others in the Central District of California.
- On February 24, 2025, the court issued an order instructing Williams to seek entry of default against defendants who failed to respond to the complaint by the deadline.
- Defendant Ennio Capra, as Trustee of the Ennio Capra Trust, was served via substituted service on April 8, 2025, with a response deadline of May 9, 2025.
- Williams failed to request entry of default after the defendant did not respond, despite explicit court warnings that failure to do so could result in dismissal.
- The court reviewed whether dismissal for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders was appropriate, applying the factors outlined in Ninth Circuit precedent.
- The court dismissed the action without prejudice, citing plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court's standing orders and prosecute the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for failure to prosecute | Not explicitly stated in opinion | Not explicitly stated in opinion | Dismissal without prejudice |
| Compliance with court's default order | No request for entry of default | No response to complaint | Failure to comply; action dismissed |
| Disposition on merits vs. docket mgmt | Not explicitly stated | Not explicitly stated | Docket management favored dismissal |
| Notice and opportunity before dismissal | Plaintiff was given explicit warning | Not applicable | Sufficient notice; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute is necessary for court efficiency)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (district courts may dismiss for failure to comply with any court order)
- Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (enumerates factors for dismissal under Rule 41(b))
- Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (plaintiff’s noncompliance can justify dismissal under Rule 41(b))
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (lists factors for and against Rule 41(b) dismissal)