Case 2:18-cv-00445-SPL Document 17 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 ) No. CV-18-00445-PHX-SPL
Luke C. Zouvas, et al.,
9 )
)
Plaintiffs, ) ORDER
10 )
vs.
11 )
)
Greenfield Farms Food Incorporated, )
12 et al., )
13 )
)
Defendants. )
14
15 On February 8, 2018, this case was transferred from the Southern District of
16 California (Doc. 1). As of April 24, 2018, no answer had been filed and Plaintiffs had
17 taken no action in this matter. Accordingly, this Court issued an Order directing
18 Plaintiffs to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed in its entirety
19 for failure to prosecute (Doc. 16). To date, no response has been filed.
20 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the plaintiff
21 fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to
22 dismiss the action or any claim against it.” The district court also has the inherent power
23 to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, for failure to comply with court
24 orders, or for failure to follow the local rules. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S.
25 626, 629-31 (1962) (recognizing that the district court has sua sponte power to dismiss
26 for failure to prosecute); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to
27 comply with local rules is a proper ground for dismissal); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
28 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply
 Case 2:18-cv-00445-SPL Document 17 Filed 06/01/18 Page 2 of 2

1 with an order of the court). In determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the Court
2 weighs “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s
3 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
4 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
5 sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (citation omitted).
6 Having considered the five factors here, the Court concludes that dismissal is
7 warranted. While public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, see
8 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002), this factor is outweighed by
9 Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action in any meaningful way, compounded by the
10 noncompliance with the Court’s Order and the local rules. See Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30
11 (a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue
12 delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the
13 district courts); Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1452 (9th Cir. 1994)
14 (“[T]he failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify a dismissal, even in
15 the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant from the failure.”)
16 (quotation omitted). This case remains indefinitely stalled, and Plaintiffs’ ongoing
17 inaction demonstrates that dismissal is warranted; undertaking any lesser measure would
18 be unavailing. While dismissal itself is a drastic sanction, see Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260,
19 dismissal without prejudice is available and appropriate in this case. Accordingly,
20 IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to
21 prosecute and comply with the Court’s Order.
22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of
23 dismissal without prejudice and terminate this action.
24 Dated this 31st day of May, 2018.
25
26 Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
27
28