1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BRENDA CORE, ) Case No. CV 20-6136 FMO (JCx) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) 12 v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 13 ELIES VILLAGE 2 LLC, ) ) 14 ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 On July 16, 2020, the court issued a Standing Order Re: ADA Accessibility Cases (see Dkt. 18 9, Court’s Order of July 16, 2020), which ordered plaintiff to file a request for entry of default no 19 later than seven days after the time the response to the complaint would have been due by the 20 defendant. (Id. at 2). The court admonished plaintiff that “failure to seek entry of default within 21 seven [] days after the deadline to file a response to the complaint shall result in the dismissal of 22 the action and/or the defendant against whom entry of default should have been sought.” (Id. at 23 2-3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

,

, 24 1388 (1962)). 25 Here, defendant was served with the summons and complaint on September 15, 2020, by 26 personal service. (See Dkt. 10, Proof of Service). Accordingly, defendant’s responsive pleading 27 to the Complaint was due no later than October 6, 2020. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a). As of the date of 28 1 this Order, defendant has not answered the complaint, nor has plaintiff filed a request for entry of 2 default. (See, generally, Dkt.). 3 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link,

,

(authority to dismiss for failure 5 to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court 6 calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss 7 action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and 8 should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this 9 extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 10 These factors include: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 11 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability 12 of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” 13 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik,

); see 14 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 2019) (“By its plain text, 15 a Rule 41(b) dismissal . . . requires ‘a court order’ with which an offending plaintiff failed to 16 comply.”). “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings 17 in order to show that it has considered these factors and [the Ninth Circuit] may review the record 18 independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Ferdik,

1261. 20 Pursuant to Rule 41(b) and the Court’s inherent power to achieve the orderly and 21 expeditious disposition of cases, Link,

,

, and in light of the 22 factors outlined above, dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to comply with the 23 Court’s Order of July 16, 2020 (Dkt. 9), is appropriate. 24 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, 25 without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court. 26 Dated this 20th day of October, 2020. /s/ 27 Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 28