Li v. The Siegel Group, Inc.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Yi Li, Case No. 2:25-cv-01342-CDS-BNW 5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v. 7 The Siegel Group, Inc., 8 Defendants. 9 10 On March 2, 2026, this Court received notice that Plaintiff’s mail was returned as 11 undeliverable. ECF No. 6. This Court promptly issued a minute order directing Plaintiff to update 12 their address by April 3, 2026, and warning them that failure to do so may result in dismissal of 13 the case. ECF No. 7. The Clerk’s Office mailed this minute order to Plaintiff, and it was again 14 returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff failed to update their address by the ordered 15 deadline. Plaintiff has also failed to file an amended complaint as ordered by this Court. See ECF 16 No. 3 (setting amended complaint deadline for March 10, 2026). As a result, this Court 17 recommends that the case be dismissed without prejudice. 18 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute 19 his case or comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest 20 Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that courts may dismiss an action pursuant 21 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply 22 with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 23 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 24 complaint). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the court must consider: (1) the public’s 25 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 26 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 27 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. 1 Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 2 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 4 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The 5 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 6 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 7 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 8 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits— 9 weighs against dismissal. 10 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 11 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. Courts 12 “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 13 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 14 Cir. 1986). Because Plaintiff has failed to update their address, despite a court order, the only 15 alternative is to enter another order directing Plaintiff to participate in their case. Setting another 16 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors 17 dismissal. 18 In balance, the factors above favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City 19 of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393 (9th Cir. 1998) (holdings dismissal is proper where least four factors 20 support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). 21 / / 22 / / 23 / / 24 / / 25 / / 26 / / 27 / / 1 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED for 2 || failure to comply with court orders. 3 NOTICE 4 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 5 || to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 6 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 7 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 8 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 9 || 1157 (th Cir. 1991). 10 1] DATED: April 13, 2026 12 K gp~ la WEEN BRENDA WEKSLER □ 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28