1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, ) Case No. CV 20-11640 FMO (MRWx) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) 12 v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 13 BOM SEO LEE, et al., ) ) 14 ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 On January 11, 2021, the court issued a Standing Order Re: ADA Accessibility Cases (see 18 Dkt. 9, Court’s Order of January 11, 2021), which ordered plaintiff to file a request for entry of 19 default no later than seven days after the time the response to the complaint would have been due 20 by the defendant. (Id. at 2). The court admonished plaintiff that “failure to seek entry of default 21 within seven [] days after the deadline to file a response to the complaint shall result in the 22 dismissal of the action and/or the defendant against whom entry of default should have been 23 sought.” (Id. at 2-3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 24

(1962)). 25 Here, defendants Ki Soo Pak and Myung Kyu Lee were served by personal service on 26 January 11 and 12, 2021, (see Dkt. 11, Proof of Service [as to Ki Soo Pak]); (Dkt. 10, Proof of 27 Service [as to Myung Kyu Lee]), and defendants Bom Seo Lee and Kyung Sook Pak were served 28 1 Lee]); (Dkt. 14, Proof of Service [as to Kyung Sook Pak]). On January 29, 2021, the parties filed 2 a stipulation extending Ki Soo Pak, Myung Kyu Lee, Bom Seo Lee, and Kyung Sook Pak’s 3 (collectively, “defendants”) time to respond to the Complaint to March 3, 2021. (See Dkt. 15, 4 Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendants [to] File a Response to Initial Complaint [ ] at 2). As of 5 the date of this Order, defendants have not responded to the Complaint, nor has plaintiff filed a 6 request for entry of default as to each defendant. (See, generally, Dkt.). 7 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link,

,

(authority to dismiss for failure 9 to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court 10 calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss 11 action for failure to comply with any court order). Dismissal, however, is a severe penalty and 12 should be imposed only after consideration of the relevant factors in favor of and against this 13 extreme remedy. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 14 These factors include: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 15 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability 16 of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” 17 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik,

); see 18 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 2019) (“By its plain text, 19 a Rule 41(b) dismissal . . . requires ‘a court order’ with which an offending plaintiff failed to 20 comply.”). “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings 21 in order to show that it has considered these factors and [the Ninth Circuit] may review the record 22 independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Ferdik,

1261. 24 Having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that this action should 25 be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s failure to 26 file a request for entry of default as to each defendant hinders the court’s ability to move this case 27 toward disposition and indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action. In other words, 28 1 [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 3 failure to file a request for entry of default would result in a dismissal of the action for lack of 4 prosecution and failure to comply with a court order. (See Dkt. 9, Court’s Order of January 11, 5 2021, at 2); see also Ferdik,

(“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his failure 6 to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration of alternatives 7 requirement.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, having considered the Pagtalunan 8 factors, the court is persuaded that the instant action should be dismissed for failure to comply 9 with a court order and failure to prosecute. 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, 11 without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court. 12 Dated this 14th day of March, 2021. /s/ 13 Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28