1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YALU WANG, Case No. 2:25-cv-01037-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT (ECF No. 29) CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Yalu Wang, proceeding without the aid of counsel, filed this action on 18 April 7, 2025.1 Compl. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff amended her complaint on July 22, 2025 by 19 filing her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which is permitted once as a matter of 20 course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). See FAC (ECF No. 28); 21 see also 7/1/2025 Order (ECF No. 25). On August 6, 2025, Defendant Toyota Motor 22 Credit Corporation filed the pending motion to dismiss and re-noticed it for a hearing for 23 September 16, 2025. (ECF Nos. 29, 31). On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for 24 a 21-day extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF 25 No. 32.) On August 21, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, ordering Plaintiff’s 26 opposition due on September 10, 2025, Defendant’s reply, if any, due 10 days 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to

(c) on the 28 consent of all parties. (ECF Nos. 4, 18, 20.) 1 thereafter, and continued the hearing on Defendant’s motion to October 21, 2025. 2 8/21/25 Order (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non- 3 opposition to the motion. See Docket. On September 19, 2025, the Court submitted the 4 motion without appearance and without argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 9/19/25 5 Order (ECF No. 34). For the following reasons, the Court dismisses this action for failure 6 to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and DENIES Defendant’s 7 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) as moot. 8 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a court may dismiss an action for 10 failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 11 court’s local rules, or any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Ghazali v. 12 Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (approving dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a party’s 13 failure to follow the district court’s local rules). This court’s Local Rules are in accord. 14 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 15 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 16 and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the 17 Court.”); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply 18 with the federal rules, local rules, or other applicable law may support dismissal of that 19 party’s action). The court may act on its own accord in exercising this authority. Hells 20 Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) 21 (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)). 22 The Ninth Circuit has found the following factors relevant in determining whether a 23 case should be dismissed under Rule 41(b): 24 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 25 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant(s); 26 (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 27 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 2019). 28 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Applying the factors for involuntary dismissal, the Court finds this action should be 3 dismissed. See Applied Underwriters,

. The first two factors weigh in 4 favor of dismissal because the public has a strong interest in expeditious resolution of 5 litigation, and Plaintiff has failed to take the steps necessary to move this case forward 6 by failing to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. In 7 addition, this district court in particular has a strong need and interest in managing its 8 docket given the extremely high caseload in the Eastern District of California. While the 9 risk of prejudice to Defendant is somewhat minimal, there is some prejudice given the 10 impact on resources of stale litigation. 11 As to the fourth factor, the Court has already tried less drastic alternatives. 12 Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an opposition 13 and notified the parties of the new briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss, including 14 the new deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition. 8/21/25 Order. 15 However, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s motion and has not requested 16 additional time to do so. See Docket. 17 Finally, as to the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, that 18 factor is outweighed here. Indeed, it is Plaintiff’s own failure to prosecute the case and 19 comply with the rules that precludes a resolution on the merits. 20 Therefore, after careful consideration, the Court concludes dismissal for failure to 21 prosecute is appropriate. See Hells Canyon,

(approving court’s sua 22 sponte dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s orders). As a result, Defendant’s motion 24 to dismiss is moot and denied without prejudice. 25 ORDER 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDER that: 27 1. Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED; 28 / / / 1 2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice 2 as moot; and 3 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 4 5 | Dated: November 13, 2025 C iy S \U 6 CHI S00 KIM 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 || 4, wang1037.25 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28