1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 THERESA BROOKE, ) Case No. SA CV 24-0949 FMO (ADSx) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) 12 v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 13 ANAHEIM GATEWAY RETAIL LLC, ) ) 14 ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 On May 13, 2024, the court issued a Standing Order Re: Disability Cases, (see Dkt. 10, 18 Court’s Order of May 13, 2024), which ordered plaintiff to file a request for entry of default no later 19 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 22 of the action and/or the defendant against whom entry of default should have been sought.” (Id. 23 at 2-3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

,

1386, 1388 (1962)). 25 Here, defendant was served with the summons and complaint on May 9, 2024. (See Dkt. 26 11, Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint [] (“Stipulation”) at 1). On May 29, 27 2024, the parties stipulated to extend defendant’s deadline to respond to the Complaint to June 28 1] 12,2024. (See id. at 2). As of the date of this Order, defendant has not answered the complaint, 2|| nor has plaintiff filed a request for entry of 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 to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss 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). These factors include: “(1)the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability 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, 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 independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Ferdik,

] 1261. 20 Having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that this action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's failure to file a request for entry of default hinders the court’s ability to move this case toward disposition 23|| and indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action. In other words, plaintiff's “noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing [her] to 25 || control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 990 26 | (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, plaintiff was warned that failure to file arequest for entry of default would result in a dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and 28 | failure to comply with a court order. (See Dkt. 10, Court’s Order of May 13, 2024, at 2-3); see also

1 Ferdik,

(“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s 2 order will result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration of alternatives requirement.”) (internal 3 quotation marks omitted). Thus, having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is 4 persuaded that the instant action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and 5 failure to prosecute. 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, 7 without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with the orders of the court. 8 Dated this 24th day of June, 2024. /s/ 9 Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28