1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 YURI DOERING, Case No. 2:25-cv-08311-JC 12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

14 DELTA 9 THC, LLC, et al., 15 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On September 3, 2025, Plaintiff Yuri Doering (“Plaintiff”), who is 21 represented by counsel, filed a Complaint against Defendants Delta 9 THC, LLC 22 (“Delta”), Kevin P. Harshberger, Trustee of the Harshberger Family Trust 23 (“Harshberger”), and unnamed Doe Defendants 1-10. (Docket No. 1). On 24 October 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed Proofs of Service, indicating Delta and Harshberger 25 were served on October 2, 2025 and October 1, 2025, respectively. (Docket Nos. 26 9, 10). Defendants responses to the Complaint were thus due by October 23, 2025 27 and October 22, 2025, respectively. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A), 12(a)(1)(A)(i). 28 /// 1 On October 23 and 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default as 2 to Defendant Harshberger (Docket Nos. 12, 14), but before the Clerk acted on such 3 request, Plaintiff and Defendant Harshberger filed a Stipulation to Set Aside Entry 4 of Default (“Stipulation”) (Docket No. 16) on October 29, 2025. On November 5, 5 2025, the Court denied the Stipulation as moot because the Clerk had never entered 6 Defendant Harshberger’s default but, in light of the substance of the Stipulation, 7 deemed Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default withdrawn and reset Defendants’ 8 deadline to file a response to the Complaint to December 5, 2025. Such deadline 9 has since expired with no action by any party. No response to the Complaint has 10 been filed. Defendants have not requested a further extension of time to file a 11 responsive pleading. No request for the entry of default has since been filed. 12 On December 17, 2025, by which date neither Defendant had filed a 13 response to the Complaint and Plaintiff had not requested the entry of default 14 against either Defendant, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by no 15 later than December 29, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed for failure 16 to prosecute (“OSC”). (Docket No. 22). The OSC cautioned that Plaintiff’s failure 17 timely to file a response to the OSC and/or to show good cause might result in the 18 dismissal of this case based on Plaintiff’s lack of prosecution and/or failure to 19 comply with this OSC. 20 Plaintiff has not taken any other action in this case, and the time to respond 21 to the Court’s OSC has expired. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 District courts “have inherent power to control their dockets and may 24 impose sanctions, including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion.” Oliva 25 v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). When 26 determining “whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to 27 comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the 28 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 2 1 || manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the 2 || availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring 3 || disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th 4 || Cir. 2002) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003). Having considered 5 || the Pagtalunan factors, the Court is persuaded that this action should be dismissed 6 || for failure to comply with a court order — the OSC — and failure to prosecute. 7 || Plaintiff's failure to seek entry of default or to take any other action hinders the 8 || Court’s ability to move this case toward disposition and indicates that Plaintiff does 9 || not intend to litigate this action. 10 With regard to the first factor, “the public’s interest in expeditious 11 | resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 12 | F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The second factor also favors dismissal because 13 || “[iJt is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to 14 | routine noncompliance of litigants... Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation 15 || omitted). In other words, Plaintiff's “noncompliance has caused [this] action to 16 || come to a complete halt, thereby allowing [him] to control the pace of the docket 17 || rather than the Court.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (internal quotation marks 18 || omitted). As to the third factor, an unreasonable delay creates a presumption of 19 || prejudice. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452 (9th Cir. 1994). With regard to 20 || the fourth factor, the Court notes it has attempted less drastic alternatives to no 21 || avail. The Court issued an OSC why this case should not be dismissed for 22 || failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not respond to the OSC. Thus, it does not appear 23 || to the Court that less drastic sanctions are available. Finally, as to the fifth factor, 24 || the public policy favoring disposition on the merits generally weighs against 25 || dismissal, but “it logically rests upon an inherent presumption a litigant. . . has 26 || manifested a diligent desire to prosecute his or her claims.” Ewing v. Ruano, 2012 27 | WL 2138159, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2012). Indeed, it is a plaintiff's 28 || responsibility to move a case toward a merits disposition. See Morris v. Morgan

1 Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff’s failure timely to 2 prosecute this case, including his failure to seek default or take other action after 3 Defendants failed to file timely responses to the Complaint, decreases the weight of 4 the public policy favoring disposition on the merits. See Yong Koo v. Portillo, 5 2020 WL 10313717, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2020) (dismissing action with 6 prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders when the 7 plaintiff failed to file a motion for default judgment by court's deadline); Kyu Hwa 8 Back v. Jose Gonzalez, 2020 WL 4018813, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020) 9 (dismissing case without prejudice for same). The Court finds, therefore, that this 10 factor is neutral and does not preclude dismissal. 11 III. CONCLUSION 12 On balance, the Court finds the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 13 This case is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 14 prosecute and comply with a Court order. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: December 31, 2025 17 18 ________________/s/___________________ 19 Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4