Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Walker v. Saul, CV 19-3218-E. (2019)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20191024852 Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL CHARLES F. EICK , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff filed this social security action on April 24, 2019. The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant filed an Answer on August 19, 2019. In accordance with the "Order," filed May 2, 2019, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or remand was due thirty days after the filing of Defendant's Answer. Defendant's Answer was filed on August 19, 2019, but Plaintiff failed to file a motion for sum
More

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff filed this social security action on April 24, 2019. The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant filed an Answer on August 19, 2019.

In accordance with the "Order," filed May 2, 2019, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or remand was due thirty days after the filing of Defendant's Answer. Defendant's Answer was filed on August 19, 2019, but Plaintiff failed to file a motion for summary judgment or remand within thirty days thereafter.

By Minute Order filed September 24, 2019, the Court observed that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was overdue. The same Order required Plaintiff to file within twenty (20) days of September 24, 2019, a motion for summary judgment or a declaration signed under penalty of perjury attempting to show cause, if there be any, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court cautioned that "[f]ailure timely to comply with this order may be deemed consent to the dismissal of this action." Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to comply with the September 24, 2019 Minute Order within the allotted time.

In view of the circumstances discussed above, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's orders to file a timely motion for summary judgment or remand. See Link v. Wabash, R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1952) (court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992) (court may dismiss action for failure to comply with a court order, after the court considers the appropriate factors);1 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

FootNotes


1. The Court has considered the appropriate factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet and has concluded that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. In particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under the circumstances of this case.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer