2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 FULLER FAMILY TRUST, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00091-MMD-DJA

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 8 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On June 6, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to file within 30 days an amended 12 complaint and a notice either: (1) indicating that they have obtained counsel to represent 13 them in this action; or (2) explaining and providing evidence of why counsel for the Trust 14 is not legally required. (ECF No. 12.) That deadline has now long expired, and Plaintiffs 15 have not filed an amended complaint nor a notice responsive to the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets, and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 19 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 20 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. 21 Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 22 Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 23 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440-41 24 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 25 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 26 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 28 local rules). 2 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 3 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 6 See Thompson,

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone,

130; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 8 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 9 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 10 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 11 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 12 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 13 West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 15 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 16 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 17 requirement. See Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson, 779 18 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s latest order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and 19 notice regarding counsel expressly stated: “It is further ordered that if Plaintiffs do not 20 timely comply with these orders contained herein, the Court will dismiss this case without 21 prejudice.” (ECF No. 12 at 6.) Thus, Plaintiffs had adequate warning that dismissal would 22 result from their noncompliance with the Court’s order. 23 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 24 Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint and notice regarding counsel in compliance 25 with this Court’s order (ECF No. 12). 26 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 27 /// 28 /// 1 DATED THIS 3% Day of August 2023. MIRANDA M. DU 4 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28