Becker

facts are familiar to the parties, we reference them only as they are relevant to the

decision.

The first factor—the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation—

strongly favored dismissal. Homeowners exhibited a pattern of noncompliance with

deadlines. Failure to comply with the court’s orders or the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provides grounds for dismissal under Rule 41(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Homeowners argue that they missed these deadlines in good faith, but a showing of

bad faith is not required under the court’s inherent power to dismiss for lack of

24-443 prosecution under Rule 41(b). See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th

Cir. 1986).

The second factor—the district court’s need to manage its docket—also

strongly favored dismissal. Plaintiffs’ repeated failures to meet deadlines

undermined efficient management of the district court’s docket. See Pagtalunan,

291 F.3d at 642.

The third factor—the risk of prejudice to Appellee TIG Insurance Company

(“TIG”)—also strongly favored dismissal. TIG suffered prejudice because

Homeowners interfered with TIG’s trial preparation and…