1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS LANGER, ) Case No. CV 20-4480 FMO (JEMx) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 14 256 WINSTON CENTER, ) ) 15 ) ) 16 Defendant. ) ) 17 18 On November 2, 2020, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for default 19 judgment without prejudice, (see Dkt. 17, Court’s Order of November 2, 2020), which ordered 20 plaintiff to file a renewed motion for default judgment no later than November 13, 2020. (See id. 21 at 4). The court admonished plaintiff that “failure to file a renewed motion for default judgment by 22 [November 27, 2020] shall result in . . . the action against defendant being dismissed for failure 23 to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order.” (Id. at 4) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. 24 Wabash R.R. Co.,

,

(1962)). On November 16, 2020, 25 the court granted plaintiff an additional ten days to file a renewed motion for default judgment. 26 (See Dkt. 19, Court’s Order of November 16, 2020). As of the date of this order, plaintiff has not 27 filed a renewed motion for default judgment. (See, generally, Dkt.). 28 1 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link,

,

(authority to dismiss for failure 3 to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court 4 calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss 5 action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and 6 should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this 7 extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 8 These factors include: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 9 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability 10 of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” 11 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik,

); see 12 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 2019) (“By its plain text, 13 a Rule 41(b) dismissal . . . requires ‘a court order’ with which an offending plaintiff failed to 14 comply.”). “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings 15 in order to show that it has considered these factors and [the Ninth Circuit] may review the record 16 independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Ferdik,

1261. 18 Having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that this action should 19 be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s failure to 20 file the renewed motion for default judgment hinders the court’s ability to move this case toward 21 disposition and indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action. In other words, 22 plaintiff’s “noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing 23 [her] to control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, plaintiff was warned that 25 failure to file a renewed motion for default judgment would result in a dismissal of the action for 26 lack of prosecution and failure to comply with a court order. (See Dkt. 24, Court’s Order of 27 October 26, 2020, at 4); see also Ferdik,

(“[A] district court’s warning to a party 28 1 alternatives requirement.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, having considered the 2 Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that the instant action should be dismissed for failure 3 to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, 5 without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court. 6 Dated this 30th day of November, 2020. 7 /s/ 8 Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28