1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 RALPH STEPHEN COPPOLA, as trustee Case No. 3:25-CV-00491-MMD-CLB of R.S. Coppola Trust, et al., 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF Plaintiffs, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 6 v. 7 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 On September 9, 2025, Plaintiffs Ralph Stephen Coppola, as an individual and as 11 Trustee of the R.S. Coppola Trust, and Jesse David Solomon (“Plaintiffs”) filed an 12 emergency motion to use electronic filing, a motion to temporarily waive filing fees, and 13 three supporting declarations. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4.) However, Plaintiffs did not 14 file a complaint. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to use electronic filing because it was 15 filed collectively rather than individually and ordered Plaintiffs to file a complaint and fully 16 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for each Plaintiff or pay the full $405 17 filing fee for a civil action by Monday, October 27, 2025. (ECF No. 3.) The Court cautioned 18 that failure to comply with all requirements outlined in the order would “result in a 19 recommendation to the District Court to dismiss [the] case.” (Id. at 3.) There have been 20 no filings since the Court’s order. 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power . . . may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1961)). A court may dismiss 25 an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 26

27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53- 2 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 3 Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 4 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440-41 5 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se 6 plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

, 7 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 8 v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution 9 and failure to comply with local rules). 10 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 11 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 12 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 13 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 15 Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; 16 Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 17 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 18 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 19 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs 20 in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 21 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See 22 Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy 23 favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 24 of dismissal discussed herein. 25 Finally, the Court’s warning to Plaintiffs that their failure to obey the Court’s order 26 will result in the Court recommending dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 27 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

; Malone,

; 1| “Failure to comply with all of the requirements of this order will result in a recommendation 2| tothe District Court to dismiss this case.” (ECF No. 3 at 3.) Thus, Plaintiffs had adequate 3} warning that dismissal would result from their noncompliance with the Court’s order. 4 Accordingly, the Court recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice 5 | based on Plaintiffs’ failure to file a complaint and pay the filing fee or file a fully complete 6 | application to proceed in forma pauperis for each Plaintiff as ordered. 7 The parties are advised: 8 1. Pursuant to

(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and 10 | Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be 12 | accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 13 2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. I. RECOMMENDATION 17 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 19 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT 20 accordingly and CLOSE this case. 4 DATED: November 3, 2025 ‘

33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28