Wykanush Ventures LLC v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE WYKANUSH VENTURES LLC, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. C21-5710-DGE-MLP 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE KARSTAN WALKER, et al., 12 Defendants.

14 On September 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Wykanush Ventures LLC and TCAIXP LLC (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in this action seeking damages for conversion, fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. (Dkt. # 1.) On October 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed affidavits stating two defendants, Karstan Walker and Kristopher Walker, had been served on October 2, 2021. (Dkt. ## 6-7.) Plaintiffs have not filed proof of service on the third defendant, Ronald Yauchzee. On December 9, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Intent to Seek Entry of Default against Karstan Walker and Kristopher Walker “fourteen days after service of this notice.” (“Notice” (dkt. # 9).) Plaintiffs have not sought default nor filed proof that service of the Notice has occurred.

1 It is within the inherent power and discretion of the court to dismiss a civil case for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to prosecute must be unreasonable in order to support dismissal); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 4 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court weighs five factors to determine if involuntary dismissal for lack of prosecution is proper. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). Specifically, the Court considers: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Id. Dismissal is proper where at least four factors support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal. Beck v. Pike, 2017 WL 530354, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2017) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)).

13 Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause by February 4, 2022, why the Court should not dismiss the complaint in this matter for failure to prosecute. Absent a timely response to this Order, the Court will recommend this action be dismissed without prejudice.

16 Dated this 21st day of January, 2022.

A 18 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge