R.A. Lotter Insurance Marketing, Inc. v. United States

DISCUSSION

It is well established that district courts have sua sponte authority to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating a court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming district court’s dismissal of action pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failing to comply with a court order). In deciding whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders, a district court must consider five factors: “(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 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., 149 F.4th 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)).

In the instant action, the first two factors – public interest in expeditious resolution of…