1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HANEE PETERMAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01489-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR

13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 1-800-PACK-RAT, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Hanee Peterman, proceeding without the aid of counsel, originally filed 18 this action in Sacramento County Superior Court on April 1, 2025.1 (ECF No. 1-1.) 19 Defendant 1-800-Pack-Rat, LLC removed this action to federal court on May 28, 2025. 20 (ECF No. 1.) On June 22, 2025, the district judge issued a related case order relating 21 and reassigning to District Judge Dena Coggins and the undersigned the following 22 cases: (1) this action, (2) McBryde v. 1-800-Pack-Rat, LLC, 2:25-cv-01474-DC-CSK 23 (E.D. Cal. 2025), and (3) McBryde v. 1-800-Pack-Rat, LLC, 2:25-cv-01498-DC-CSK 24 (E.D. Cal. 2025). (ECF No. 9.) 25 On June 4, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and set it for hearing before 26 Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. (ECF No. 5.) In light of the Related Case Order 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 reassigning this action to the undersigned, on June 23, 2025, the motion to dismiss 2 hearing before Judge Delaney was vacated and Defendant was directed to re-notice the 3 hearing before the undersigned. (ECF No. 10.) On June 24, 2025, Defendant filed an 4 amended motion to dismiss and set it for a hearing before the undersigned for July 22, 5 2025.2 (ECF No. 11.) After Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition or statement of non- 6 opposition to Defendant’s motion had passed, on June 27, 2025, the Court ordered 7 Plaintiff to show cause by July 7, 2025 why the Court should not construe Plaintiff’s 8 failure to file a timely opposition as a non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss 9 and why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 6/27/2025 Order 10 (ECF No. 12) (citing E.D. Cal. L. R. 110 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). The deadline has 11 now passed without any response from Plaintiff to the Order to Show Cause, or to 12 Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court recommends 13 dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 14 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 15 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a court may dismiss an action for 16 failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 17 court’s local rules, or any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Ghazali v. 18 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (approving dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a party’s 19 failure to follow the district court’s local rules). This court’s Local Rules are in accord. 20 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 21 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 22 and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the 23 Court.”); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply 24 with the federal rules, local rules, or other applicable law may support dismissal of that 25 party’s action). The court may act on its own accord in exercising this authority. Hells

26 2 On July 9, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s request to appear remotely at the July 27 22, 2025 hearing. (ECF No. 14.) The Court reset the July 22, 2025 hearing for 9:30 a.m. before the undersigned via Zoom. (Id.) 28 1 Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 2 (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)). 3 The Ninth Circuit has found the following factors relevant in determining whether a 4 case should be dismissed under Rule 41(b): (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 5 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 6 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant(s); (4) merits the availability of less drastic alternatives; and 7 (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their. 8 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019). 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Applying the factors for involuntary dismissal, the Court finds this action should be 11 dismissed. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 890. The first two factors weigh in 12 favor of dismissal because the public has a strong interest in expeditious resolution of 13 litigation, and Plaintiff has failed to take the steps necessary to move this case forward. 14 In addition, this district court in particular has a strong need and interest in managing its 15 docket given the extremely high caseload in the Eastern District of California. While the 16 risk of prejudice to Defendant is somewhat minimal, there is some prejudice given the 17 impact on resources of stale litigation. 18 As to the fourth factor, the Court has already tried less drastic alternatives. 19 Specifically, Plaintiff previously missed the deadline to file an opposition or statement of 20 non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and was given an opportunity to explain 21 this failure. (ECF No. 12.) Despite this, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Order to 22 Show Cause, respond to the motion to dismiss, or participate in this litigation, leaving the 23 Court with little alternative but to recommend dismissal. 24 Finally, as to the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, that 25 factor is outweighed here. Indeed, it is Plaintiff’s own failure to prosecute the case and 26 comply with the rules that precludes a resolution on the merits. 27 Therefore, after careful consideration, the Court concludes dismissal for failure to 28 prosecute is appropriate. See Hells Canyon, 403 F.3d at 689 (approving court’s sua 1 | sponte dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the 2 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s orders). 3 | Ill. CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The July 22, 2025 Zoom hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss is 6 VACATED; and 7 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a courtesy copy of this order and 8 findings and recommendations by e-mail to Plaintiff at the e-mail address 9 listed by Plaintiff on her documents haneepeterman23@gmail.com. 10 Further, IT |S HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 11 1. Plaintiff's action be DISMISSED; 12 2. Defendant's amended motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be DENIED as 13 moot; and 14 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 15 | These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should be 19 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply 20 | to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 days 21 | after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 22 | waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 23 | (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 || Dated: July 15, 2025 C i s 26 CHI SOO KIM 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 || 4, pete1489.25