Williams v. U.S. Airways, 3:17-cv-05617-JD. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171115961
Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Re: Dkt. No. 17 JAMES DONATO , District Judge . The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on October 5, 2017. Dkt. No. 12. Williams's response was initially due by October 19. Williams did not file a response but filed a motion to remand on October 20. Dkt. No. 15. The Court extended Williams's deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss and advised him that the Court would grant the motion if he failed to timely oppose. Dkt. No. 17. As of Novembe
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Re: Dkt. No. 17 JAMES DONATO , District Judge . The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on October 5, 2017. Dkt. No. 12. Williams's response was initially due by October 19. Williams did not file a response but filed a motion to remand on October 20. Dkt. No. 15. The Court extended Williams's deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss and advised him that the Court would grant the motion if he failed to timely oppose. Dkt. No. 17. As of November..
More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 17
JAMES DONATO, District Judge.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on October 5, 2017. Dkt. No. 12. Williams's response was initially due by October 19. Williams did not file a response but filed a motion to remand on October 20. Dkt. No. 15. The Court extended Williams's deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss and advised him that the Court would grant the motion if he failed to timely oppose. Dkt. No. 17. As of November 14, Williams has not filed an opposition.
The Court has considered the five factors set forth in Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court finds that notwithstanding the public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the Court's need to manage its docket and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of the litigation require dismissal of this action. In light of the plaintiff's continued failure to respond to the defendant's motion, the Court finds there is no appropriate less drastic sanction. This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
