Whitehorn Construction, Inc. v. Berean Healthcare Staffing, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. ED CV 21-472-JFW(SKHx) Date: December 6, 2021

Title: Whitehorn Construction, Inc. -v- Berean Healthcare Staffing, Inc., et al.

PRESENT:

HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Shannon Reilly None Present

Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None None

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

On April 7, 2021, the Court issued a Scheduling and Case Management Order (“CMO”).

See Docket No. 8. The CMO set December 1, 2021 as the deadline for the parties to file or submit

the proposed Pretrial Conference Order, the Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law, the

Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation, the Summary of Witness Testimony and Time Estimates, and the

Status Report Re: Settlement, Agreed Upon Set of Jury Instructions, Verdict Form and Joint

Statement of Disputed Jury Instructions (the “Pretrial Documents”).

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff Whitehorn Construction, Inc. (“Whitehorn”) has failed to

file any of the required Pretrial Documents. The Ninth Circuit has explained the importance of

complying with a district court’s CMO:

A scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be

cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” The district court’s decision to honor

the terms of its binding scheduling order does not simply exalt procedural

technicalities over the merits of [plaintiff’s] case. Disregard of the order would

undermine the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of

the litigation, and reward the indolent and the cavalier.

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner

Corp. v. Case Equipment Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.C. Me. 1985)).

In this case, Whitehorn’s failure to comply with the CMO has made it impossible for the

Court to prepare for the Pretrial Conference and the Trial. The Ninth Circuit has explained that

“[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court

may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los

Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice or strike

a defendant’s answer and enter default against that defendant, based on a party's failure to obey a

court order. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Board of

Trustees of Kern County Elec. Pension Fund v. Burgoni, 2011 WL 6002889 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30,

2011) (defendant’s answer stricken and default entered for failing to comply with a court order).

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Whitehorn is in clear violation of this Court’s

CMO, and, as a result, this action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED. The Pretrial Conference, currently scheduled for

December 10, 2021 and the Trial, currently scheduled for December 28, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., are

hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.