dismissal for failure to comply with court order
How later courts described this case
- dismissal for failure to comply with court order
- district court should first consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal with prejudice
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case 2:22-cv-04166-PA-JC Document 30 Filed 10/25/22 Page1lof2 Page ID #:216
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 22-4166 PA (JCx) Date October 25, 2022
Title Crosswinds Int’! Inc. v. HSIN Silk Road Shipping Ltd., et al.
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Kamilla Sali-Suleyman Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
On July 26, 2022, plaintiff Crosswinds Int’! Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Request for Clerk to
Enter Default of defendant HSIN Silk Road Shipping USA, Inc. (‘HSIN USA”). The Clerk
entered HSIN USA’s default on July 27, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the Court issued a
Minute Order directing the Clerk to enter the defaults of defendant HSIN Silk Road Shipping
Ltd. (“HSIN Hong Kong’) and in rem defendant “A Cargo of Commercial Goods Transported
from Ningbo, China to Los Angeles, California, pursuant to Bills of Lading Nos.
HSRNGB2021030022, HSRNGB2021030023, HSRNGB2021030025, HSRNGB2021030026,
HSRNGB2021030027, and HSRNBG2021030061A dated and shipped on board on October 7th
2021 (“In Rem Defendant’). The Clerk entered the defaults of HSIN Hong Kong and the In
Rem Defendant on September 28, 2022.
In the Court’s September 28, 2022 Minute Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a
Motion for Default Judgment or other dispositive motion by no later than October 24, 2022. The
Court warned Plaintiff that “[flailure to file a dispositive motion by that date may, without
further warning, result in the dismissal of this action.” As of today’s date, and despite the
expiration of the deadline to do so, Plaintiff has not filed a Motion for Default Judgment.
The Court may dismiss with prejudice an action or claim sua sponte if “the plaintiff fails
to prosecute or to comply with the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order.” See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (dismissal for failure to
prosecute); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal for
failure to comply with court order). This inherent power supports the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases. See Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30; Yourish, 191 F.3d at 987-88; Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).
In Henderson v. Duncan, the Ninth Circuit set forth five factors for a district court to
consider before resorting to the penalty of dismissal: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page | of 2
Case 2:22-cv-04166-PA-JC Document 30 Filed 10/25/22 Page2of2 Page |ID#:217
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 22-4166 PA (JCx) Date October 25, 2022
Title Crosswinds Int’! Inc. v. HSIN Silk Road Shipping Ltd., et al.
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions.” 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal is
appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal, or where at least three factors
‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)
(internal citations omitted) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263). Cases involving sua sponte
dismissal warrant special focus on the fifth Henderson factor. Id.
Here, an evaluation of the Henderson factors ultimately weighs in favor of the Court’s
decision to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. In assessing the first Henderson factor, the public’s
interest in expeditious resolution of litigation will be satisfied by dismissal. See Pagtalunan v.
Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (“[t]he public’s
interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”)). Relatedly, with
respect to the second factor, the Court’s need to manage its docket will be served by dismissal.
See id. (“The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case
interferes with docket management and the public interest.”). The third Henderson factor at least
marginally favors dismissal because the defendant may be further prejudiced unless the claims
against him are dismissed. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Finally, in considering the fourth and
fifth Henderson factors, the Court notes that Plaintiff was warned about the consequences of
failing to file a response by the deadline stated in the Court’s Order. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has
taken no action whatsoever. Because the Court has adopted the “less-drastic” sanction of
dismissal without prejudice, the fifth Henderson factor favors dismissal. See McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (district court should first consider less drastic
alternatives to dismissal with prejudice).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned this action and failed to comply with the
Court’s Order. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for lack of
prosecution and for failure to comply with a Court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also
Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986-88; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. The Court vacates its July 15, 2022
Order conditioning the release of the In Rem Defendant on the posting of a $600,000.00 surety
bond and releases the bond (Docket Nos. 16 & 20).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2