1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 EVIG, LLC, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00349-GMN-DJA 5 vs. 6 ORDER DISMISSING CASE FANTASY, INC, 7 Defendant. 8 9 On March 28, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (See Order 10 Granting Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 37). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend and set a 11 deadline of April 18, 2025, to file an amended complaint. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an 12 amended complaint. As a result, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice. 13 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to comply 14 with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal 15 for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). In determining 16 whether to dismiss an action on this ground, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in 17 expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of 18 prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 19 and (5) the availability of less-drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. 20 Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 21 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 22 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 23 the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. 24 The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 25 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 1 || ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 2 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits— 3 || weighs against dismissal. 4 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less-drastic alternatives can be 5 || used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. 6 || Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case but 7 || must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 8 || 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed without an operative complaint, the 9 || only alternative is to enter another order setting another deadline. The circumstances here do 10 || not indicate that Plaintiff needs additional time. Therefore, setting another deadline is not a 11 meaningful alternative. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. On balance, the factors above 12 || favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393 (9th 13 || Cir. 1998) (holding that dismissal is proper where at least four factors support dismissal or 14 || where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure 17 || to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s deadline. 18 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close this case. 19 Dated this _21 day of November, 2025. 20 Vif, Gloria M. vay arro, District Judge 22 United States District Court 23 24 25 Page 2 of 2