Facts
- The Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline set by the court, which subsequently failed to state a claim. [lines="9-11"]
- The court noted that both the court and the public benefit from the timely resolution of cases to maintain judicial efficiency. [lines="12-13"]
- The Plaintiff had delayed the action for almost four months without providing any explanation. [lines="15-18"]
- The delay in prosecuting the case was found to prejudice the Defendants by forcing them to expend unnecessary resources. [lines="16-18"]
- The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s action and directed the Clerk to close the case, vacating the previously set hearing. [lines="23-31"]
Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline justified dismissal of the action. [lines="9-10"]
- Whether the unreasonable delay in prosecuting the case constituted sufficient grounds for dismissal. [lines="15-21"]
Holdings
- The Court found that dismissal was appropriate due to the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the deadline to file an amended complaint, which failed to state a claim. [lines="8-11"]
- The Court affirmed that unreasonable delay in pursuing the case warranted presuming prejudice to the Defendants, thus supporting the dismissal. [lines="21"]
OPINION
*1 Case 5:24-cv-01220-JGB-DTB Document 20 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#:129 *2 Case 5:24-cv-01220-JGB-DTB Document 20 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:130 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to follow local rules); Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order). The Court need not weigh these factors explicitly. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53–54.
The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline imposed in the Order, and his original Complaint failed to state a claim. (See Order at 6–7.) Both the Court and the public benefit from the expeditious resolution of this action because further delay will impede judicial efficiency. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“fail[ing] to pursue the case for almost four months” favors dismissal). Additional delay will also prejudice Defendants, forcing them to spend needless resources on contesting this matter; in fact, Plaintiff has already delayed this action without explanation by failing to amend his Complaint. See Sw. Marine Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Unreasonable delay is the foundation upon which a court may presume prejudice.”).
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case. The Court VACATES the hearing set for December 2, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 2 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk MG