1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 William H. Ball, Case No. 2:23-cv-01816-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice under Rule 41(b) 6 v.

7 Trans Union, LLC,

8 Defendant

9 10 In November 2023, plaintiff William Ball commenced this lawsuit against defendant 11 Trans Union, LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Compl., ECF No. 1. 12 One year later, the parties reached an agreement to settle all claims. Notice of settlement, ECF 13 No. 29. The parties were ordered to file a stipulation of dismissal, or a joint status report 14 addressing settlement, by January 10, 2025. Min. order, ECF No. 30. On that day, Trans Union 15 provided a status report indicating that all the settlement terms were satisfied but it was unable 16 to file a dismissal because it could not get in contact with Ball. ECF No. 31. Trans Union sought 17 a fourteen-day extension of time to contact Ball for consent and submit the stipulation of 18 dismissal. Id. at 2. On January 24, 2025, Trans Union provided a second status report stating that 19 it made multiple attempts to contact Ball by phone and email, but it had not received any 20 response. ECF No. 34. It again requested an additional fourteen days to contact Ball and submit 21 the stipulation of dismissal. Id. at 2. On February 6, 2025, Trans Union submitted its third status 22 report informing the court that Ball had failed to respond to any of it attempts to contact him. 23 ECF No. 36. Unable to obtain Ball’s consent to dismissal, Trans Union seeks to dismiss this 24 action with prejudice. Id. at 3. In a supporting declaration, Trans Union’s counsel avers that (1) 25 Ball signed the confidential settlement and release agreement, (2) Ball confirmed the correct 26 mailing address for the settlement check and it was placed in the mail, (3) the settlement check 1 has been either cashed or deposited, and (4) further attempts to contact Ball by both phone and 2 email were unsuccessful. Pietrzak decl., ECF No. 36-1. 3 I. Discussion 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 authorizes dismissal of an action when the plaintiff 5 fails to prosecute or comply with the federal rules or court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 6 Although dismissal is such a harsh penalty that should be imposed as a sanction only in extreme 7 circumstances, Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986), the court must be able to 8 clear its calendar of cases that remain dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the 9 party seeking relief, Link v. Wabash R. Co.,

, 630–31 (1962). The availability of the 10 dismissal sanction “is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending 11 cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars” of the court. Link,

. 12 To determine whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate in this case, I am 13 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 14 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the 15 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic 16 sanctions. Henderson,

. 17 Here, both the first factor, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and 18 the second factor, the court’s need to manage its docket, weigh in favor dismissal. Ball has 19 repeatedly ignored Trans Union’s attempts at communication, and Ball’s inaction delays the 20 resolution of this litigation. Three months have passed since Ball signed the settlement 21 agreement. Absent dismissal, given that Ball has gone completely silent,1 this case will languish 22 on the court’s already overburdened docket. 23 1 Not only has Ball not responded to Trans Union, but his mail has also been returned as undeliverable 24 and he has failed to respond to the court’s orders to update his address in additional cases he filed in this district. See ECF No. 9 in Ball v. Equifax Info. Servs., 2:24-cv-01449-GMN-NJK; ECF No. 19 in Ball v. NP Sunset 25 LLC, 2:24-cv-01450-CDS-NJK; ECF No. 21 in Ball v. NP Boulder LLC, 2:24-cv-01451-CDS-NJK; ECF No. 4 in Ball v. Barclays Bank Del., 2:24-cv-01452-CDS-EJY; ECF No. 23 in Ball v. Station GVR Acquisition, 2:24-cv- 26 01453-CDS-NJK; ECF Nos. 9, 10 in Ball v. Palms Casino and Resort LLC, 2:24-cv-01454-CDS-NJK; ECF No. 20 in Ball v. NP Palace LLC, 2:24-cv-01455-CDS-NJK; ECF Nos. 10, 11 in Ball v. Circa Hotel and Casino, LLC, 1 The third factor, the risk to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal. Trans Union and Ball settled their dispute. ECF No. 29. Ball indicated his intent to be bound by the settlement—which would include dismissal of his claims against Trans Union—by signing the 4] settlement agreement and accepting payment. ECF No. 36 at 1-2; ECF No. 36-1 at 4, 6, 8. Dismissal under Rule 41(b) will not prejudice Trans Union because it has already negotiated an agreement that would dismiss Ball’s complaint. If the dismissal is with prejudice, Ball cannot 7|| vefile the claim, and Trans Union will not face the risk of incurring the expense of defending the claim again. 9 The fourth factor, the public policy of resolving disputes on the merits, and the fifth, requiring the court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available, are less significant here. As noted above, the parties reached an agreed settlement in this matter. In reliance on that 12|| agreed settlement, Trans Union attempted, to no avail, to obtain Ball’s consent to file the 13] stipulated dismissal. In such circumstances, and in spite of these factors’ neutrality, I find that, 14] on balance, involuntary dismissal with prejudice is appropriate in this case. 15 Conclusion 16 For the reasons stated, Ball’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice, with both parties to bear their own costs and fees. The Clerk of Court is kingly instructed to close this case. 18 Dated: February 21, 2025 LZ

19 Z A. A — 20 (id sates iis Judge 21 ‘

22 23 24 5 2:24-ev-01457-CDS-NJk; ECF No. llin Ball v. New York New York Hotel and Casino LLC, 2:24-cv-0145 8-CDS- NJK; ECF No. 10 in Ball v. Park MGM Casino, LLC, 2:24-cv-01753-CDS-NJK; ECF No. 10 in Ball v. Ramparts, LLC, 2:24-cv-01754-CDS-NJK; ECF No. 10 in Ball v. Tuscany Hotel and Casino, LLC, 2:24-cv-01756-CDS-NJK; ECF No. 12 in Ball v. Oyo Hotel & Casino, LLC, 2:24-cv-01757-CDS-NJK.