1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SKYHOP GLOBAL LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00940-PD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

14

THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

15 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

WORKS BUREAU OF CONTRACT

16 ADMINISTRATION, et al., 17 Defendants. 18

19

I. Pertinent Procedural History and Plaintiff’s Claims

20 On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff Skyhop Global LLC (“Plaintiff”), filed a 21 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment Retaliation 22 against the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of 23 Contract Administration (“Defendant”). [Dkt. No. 1.] Plaintiff seeks to 24 prevent Defendant from continuing to violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment 25 rights. [Id. at 2.] Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has threatened to 26 terminate Plaintiff’s non-exclusive licensing agreement with the City of Los 27 Angeles, which is necessary for Plaintiff to operate its business at Los Angeles 28 1 International Airport. [Id.] Plaintiff seeks declaratory, equitable, and 2 injunctive relief against Defendant. [Id.] 3 On February 4, 2025, the Court Clerk issued a summons as to 4 Defendant. [Dkt. No. 3.] Also on February 4, 2025, the Court Clerk filed a 5 Notice of Assignment to a U.S. Magistrate Judge and Declination of Consent 6 (“Notice of Assignment”). [Dkt. No. 2.] 7 On May 9, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal 8 for Lack of Prosecution (“OSC”). [Dkt. No. 8.] The Court explained that 9 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(m), Plaintiff is required 10 to serve the summons and complaint on each defendant within ninety (90) 11 days after the complaint is filed or risk dismissal of the action without 12 prejudice against the unserved defendant(s). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). [Id.] 13 Further, pursuant to Central District of California Local Civil Rule (“Local 14 Rule”) 73-2.1, Plaintiff is required to serve the Notice of Assignment on each newly served party or party added to the case at the time of service of the 15 summons and complaint or other initiating document. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 73- 16 2.1; see also Notice of Assignment. [Id.] Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to 17 serve the summons, complaint, and Notice of Assignment on Defendant by no 18 later than May 5, 2025. Plaintiff, however, failed to do so. 19 The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than June 20 8, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. [Id.] 21 The Court advised Plaintiff that an appropriate response to the OSC would 22 include the filing of a proof of service. The Court specifically advised Plaintiff 23 that failure to respond to the OSC could result in the dismissal of this action. 24 [Id.] To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the OSC. 25

II. Discussion

26 The Court has the inherent power to achieve the orderly and 27 expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 28 1 P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. See 2 Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see also Pagtalunan v. 3 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). 4 In determining whether dismissal for lack of prosecution is warranted, 5 for failure to comply with a court order or failure to prosecute, the Court must 6 weigh the following factors: (1) the public's interest in the expeditious 7 resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 8 of prejudice to the defendant/respondent; (4) the public policy favoring 9 disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic 10 sanctions. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 11 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). Having weighed these factors, the Court finds that 12 dismissal of the action without prejudice is warranted. 13 In the instant case, the first two factors favor dismissal. “[T]he public's 14 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Despite 15 having ample time to effectuate service of the summons and complaint, 16 Plaintiff has failed to file a proper proof of service or otherwise prosecute this 17 action. Plaintiff also has failed to respond to the OSC and demonstrate why 18 this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff's non- 19 compliance hinders the Court's ability to move this case toward disposition 20 and indicates that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently. 21 Plaintiff’s failure to file a proper proof of service of the summons and 22 complaint, respond to the OSC, or otherwise prosecute this case has interfered 23 with the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation and 24 the Court’s need to manage its docket. 25 The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, weighs in favor of 26 dismissal. Where a party offers a poor excuse for failing to comply with a 27 court’s order, the prejudice to the opposing parties is sufficient to favor 28 1 dismissal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991-92. Here, Plaintiff has not offered 2 any excuse for its continuing failure to file a proper proof of service of the 3 summons and complaint or otherwise respond to the OSC. Moreover, in some 4 cases, “ ‘[t]he failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify a 5 dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the 6 defendant [or respondent].’ ” In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) 7 (quoting Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)); see also 8 Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 651-52 (9th Cir. 1991). In 9 these circumstances, the “prejudice” element also favors dismissal. 10 The fourth factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, ordinarily 11 counsels against dismissal. In this case, however, there is no less drastic 12 sanction available than dismissal without prejudice. The Court afforded 13 Plaintiff ample time to file a proper proof of service of the summons and 14 complaint and warned it that failure to do so could result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Yet, Plaintiff has not filed the proof of service, 15 responded to the OSC, or otherwise litigated this case. “[A] district court's 16 warning to a party that his or her failure to obey the court's order will result 17 in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” 18 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (citations omitted). 19 The fifth and final factor requires the Court to consider the public policy 20 favoring disposition of cases on their merits. “Although there is indeed a 21 policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the moving 22 party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain 23 from dilatory and evasive tactics.” Morris, 942 F.2d at 652. Here, Plaintiff 24 has failed to meet this responsibility and has failed to comply with the Court's 25 orders or prosecute its case. 26 In light of the procedural history of this case, including Plaintiff's 27 failure to file a proper proof of service of the summons and complaint or 28 1 comply with the Court's orders, and the factors weighing in favor of dismissal, 2 the Court concludes that dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute is 3 warranted. See Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31 (“The authority of a court to dismiss 4 sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent 5 power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in 6 courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 7 expeditious disposition of cases.”). 8 III. ORDER 9 For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice for 10 failure to prosecute.

11 Dated: July 17, 2025 PATRICIA DONAHUE 12 13 ____________________________________

HON. PATRICIA DONAHUE

14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28