Mel Kleinman v. Bev-Mo
2:19-cv-01993
C.D. Cal.May 30, 2019Background:
- Plaintiff Mel Kleinman filed suit against Bev-Mo and others in the Central District of California (Case No. CV 19-1993).
- Court ordered parties to meet and confer and to file a Joint Scheduling Report by May 20, 2019, with a Scheduling Conference set for June 3, 2019.
- The April 23, 2019 scheduling order explicitly warned that failure to submit the joint report or attend the conference could result in dismissal or other sanctions.
- The parties failed to meet-and-confer and did not file the Joint Scheduling Report; no explanation was provided to the Court.
- The Court considered dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (failure to prosecute/comply with court orders) and relevant Ninth Circuit standards for dismissal.
- The Court dismissed the action without prejudice as a sanction for failure to comply with the scheduling order.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute/comply with court order is appropriate | Implied: plaintiff did not oppose or explain failure to comply | Implied: defendants could seek dismissal or rely on Court to act | Court dismissed action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) |
| Applicability of Ninth Circuit Henderson factors before dismissal | Plaintiff offered no factual showing addressing the factors | Defendants (and Court) argued dismissal warranted under the factors | Court analyzed the five Henderson factors and found dismissal justified |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice | Plaintiff did not request relief; no showing of willful misconduct | Defendants sought relief via Rule 41(b) or left to Court's discretion | Court chose the less-drastic sanction: dismissal without prejudice |
| Need to consider lesser sanctions before sua sponte dismissal | Plaintiff failed to engage; no alternative sanctions proposed | Defendants implicitly relied on Court's authority to dismiss | Court considered less drastic options and adopted dismissal without prejudice as adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (Court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to prosecute)
- Alexander v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n, 434 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1970) (sua sponte dismissal affirmed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with court orders)
- Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999) (treatment of dismissal for failure to comply/prosecute)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (five-factor test before dismissal)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (public interest and docket management favor dismissal)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (district court should consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal)