Villafane-Torres v. Walmart
2:15-cv-01585
D. Nev.May 9, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Wanda I. Villafane-Torres filed a discrimination/harassment complaint against Walmart alleging national-origin discrimination.
- The Court dismissed the original complaint on April 4, 2016 for failure to state a claim and granted leave to file an amended complaint by May 5, 2016.
- Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, request an extension, or otherwise communicate with the Court after the dismissal order.
- The Court invoked its duty to manage judicial resources and considered dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order.
- The Court applied the Ninth Circuit's five-factor test (Ferdik) addressing docket management, prejudice, public interest, disposition on merits, and alternatives.
- Finding four of the five factors favored dismissal and that less drastic alternatives had been tried, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's national-origin discrimination claim with prejudice and ordered the case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint after court-ordered deadline | Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or seek an extension (no explanation provided to court) | Walmart implicitly argued for dismissal by relying on court rules and the Court's prior order identifying deficiencies | Court dismissed the claim with prejudice under Rule 41(b) after finding the Ferdik factors (1,2,3,5) favored dismissal and that lesser measures had been afforded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir.) (district court may dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders and articulated five-factor balancing test)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir.) (public interest in expeditious resolution favors dismissal)
- Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (delay and failure to prosecute supports dismissal)
- Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir.) (application of dismissal-for-failure-to-prosecute principles)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir.) (same)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S.) (district courts may dismiss actions sua sponte for failure to prosecute)