ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.

On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff Juan Moreno filed suit against Defendant Pih Lazeez—the alleged owner of a Foster's Freeze restaurant in Oxnard, California— alleging violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and California Unruh Civil Rights and California Disabled Persons Acts. (ECF No. 1.)

Moreno filed absolutely nothing further on the docket for the next six months. On June 16, 2014, the Court ordered Moreno to show cause by June 23, 2014, why he had not timely served Defendant. (ECF No. 8.) The next day, Moreno filed a proof of service on the docket indicating that he served Defendant on February 4, 2014, and therefore that Defendant had to answer or otherwise respond by February 25, 2014. (ECF No. 9.)

After receiving the proof of service, the Court ordered Moreno to show cause why he had not moved for entry of default against Defendant given that the 21-day response window had long since closed. (ECF NO. 10.) Instead of responding to the Order, Moreno filed a putative First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) But since Moreno failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Court struck the document and emphasized that its Order to Show Cause remained in effect. (ECF No. 12.)

On June 23, 2014, Moreno responded to the Order to Show Cause with a declaration from his attorney. (ECF No. 13.) Counsel states that Moreno intends to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint this week and that Plaintiff's case is "actively being pursued." (Id.)

The United States Supreme Court has affirmed district courts' ability to dismiss actions for lack of prosecution:

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (footnote omitted). The Ninth Circuit has stated that in considering whether to invoke sua sponte dismissal, a district court should consider "the court's need to manage its docket, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants against the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions." Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984).

The Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of dismissal for lack of prosecution. This case has now reached its six-month anniversary on this Court's docket with nary an indication that Moreno is prosecuting, or will prosecute, his case actively—notwithstanding counsel's assertion to the contrary. He has given the Court no indication why he has not moved for entry of default against Defendant. Simply filing an amended complaint in order to restart the clock against Defendant violates the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's desire for expeditious case adjudication. The Court's docket and the public interest favor efficient resolution of cases by litigants who wish to have their matters heard promptly.

But the Court declines to invoke the remedy of a with-prejudice dismissal. Rather, Moreno is free to refile his case when he is ready to actively prosecute it consistent with any applicable statutes of limitations.

The Court therefore DISMISSES Moreno's action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.