Thomas Doughty v. Pelican Investment Holdings, LLC
8:24-cv-01926
| C.D. Cal. | Aug 26, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Thomas Doughty, alleges that Defendant, Pelican Investment Holdings, LLC (d/b/a Auto Service Department), repeatedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), claiming over 500 unsolicited calls.
- The Clerk initially entered default against Defendant in November 2024, which was later set aside by stipulation, allowing Defendant to file an answer.
- Defendant subsequently stopped participating in the litigation after co-filing a Rule 26(f) report in March 2025, and failed to respond to discovery or dispositive motions.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing liability based on Defendant's failure to respond to requests for admissions and discovery.
- Defendant missed deadlines to oppose Plaintiff’s motion and to respond to a court-issued Order to Show Cause regarding its lack of participation.
- The court struck Defendant’s answer, entered default, and set a deadline for Plaintiff to move for default judgment or face dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TCPA liability for unsolicited calls | Defendant made 500+ unlawful calls, violations are admitted | No substantive argument presented | Default entered against Defendant |
| Discovery non-responsiveness | Defendant failed to respond, so all RFAs deemed admitted | No substantive argument presented | Admissions deemed admitted |
| Failure to prosecute/litigation conduct | Defendant's non-participation justifies court intervention | No substantive response | Defendant’s answer stricken |
| Mootness of summary judgment motion | Summary judgment proper if admissions control | No opposition | Motion denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 41(b) permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court order)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts may act sua sponte to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (authority to dismiss with prejudice for failure to prosecute)
- Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute and comply with court order)
- Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (district courts have inherent power to control dockets, including imposing default or dismissal)