1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID GHUSAR, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00398-DC-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 PARK ‘N SHADE OF TUCSON, INC., et WITH A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO al., PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 23, 2024, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff Sana Bhumbla1 to 18 appear in person at a status conference scheduled for February 14, 2025, if she intended to 19 proceed in this action pro se, or in the alternative, file a notice of dismissal of her claims brought 20 in this action. (Doc. No. 35.) In that order, the court cautioned Plaintiff Bhumbla that her “failure 21 to appear at the February 14, 2025 status conference may result in dismissal of her claims due to 22 her failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s orders.” (Id. at 2–3.) 23 The court held the status conference on February 14, 2025, and Plaintiff Bhumbla did not 24 appear as required by the court’s December 23, 2024 order. Plaintiff Bhumbla also did not 25 comply with that order by failing to file a notice of dismissal of her claims in lieu of appearing at 26

27 1 The only other plaintiff in this action—Plaintiff David Ghusar—reached a settlement with Defendants and stipulated to dismissal of his claims with prejudice. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff 28 Ghusar was terminated from this action accordingly on February 18, 2025. (Doc. No. 38.) 1 the conference. Thus, it appears Plaintiff Bhumbla no longer wishes to prosecute this action and 2 has abandoned the litigation. 3 In determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, courts consider the 4 follow factors: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 6 disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 7

(9th Cir. 2002); Hernandez v. City of El Monte,

(9th Cir. 8 1998). 9 In addition, the Local Rules of this court provide that the failure of a party to comply with 10 any order of the court “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 11 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. A 12 party’s failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other 13 sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 14 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 15 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 16 complaint), as amended (May 22, 1992). 17 Here, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage 18 its docket, and the risk of prejudice to Defendant all support the imposition of the sanction of 19 dismissal here. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against 20 dismissal. However, Plaintiff Bhumbla’s failure to prosecute this action makes disposition on the 21 merits an impossibility. Finally, with respect to availability of less drastic sanctions, the court has 22 considered alternative measures. The issuance of yet another order to show cause would be futile 23 under the circumstances presented. 24 Accordingly, this action will be dismissed due to Plaintiff Bhumbla’s failure to prosecute 25 and failure to comply with the court’s December 23, 2024 order. 26 For the reasons set forth above, 27 1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff Bhumbla’s failure to 28 prosecute this action and failure to obey a court order; and 1 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 5 | Dated: _ February 19, 2025 EIU os Dena Coggins 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28