1 2 3 4 5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EMMA DUNN, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00563-KES-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION 12 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S v. FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE 13 14 BRISTOL WEST dba FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 On July 23, 2025, the Court ordered plaintiffs to pay the $405 filing fee within 30 days as 18 plaintiff Alana Dunn was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Doc. 13. The 19 Court warned plaintiffs that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered would result in 20 dismissal of this action without further notice. Id. at 2. Despite the Court’s warning, more than 21 30 days have passed, and plaintiffs have failed to pay the required filing fee. Without such 22 payment, the action cannot proceed before the Court. See Saddozai v. Davis,

, 709 23 (9th Cir. 2022). 24 In finding dismissal is appropriate, the Court has considered the factors outlined by the 25 Ninth Circuit for terminating sanctions, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 26 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 27 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 28 availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th Cir. 1 | 1986). The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in 2 | managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish vy. Cal. Amplifier,

, 3 | 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 4 | dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent 5 | interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Because 6 | defendants have not appeared yet and the action cannot proceed if plaintiffs have not paid the 7 | filing fee, the third factor also supports dismissal. Finally, the Court’s “a district court's warning g | to [plaintiffs] that [] failure to obey the court’s order [would] result in dismissal [] satisf[ies] the g | ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Ferdik,

. Consequently, the 10 | Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal for plaintiffs’ failure to pay the filing fee as 1] | ordered. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that 12 | although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ... weighs against 13 | dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). 14 Accordingly: 15 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 16 2. All pending matters, including the motion to amend the caption, Doc. 10, are terminated. 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 9, | TT IS SO ORDERED. _ 22 Dated: _ October 21, 2025 4h 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28