Michelle Moss v. City of Los Angeles

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their lawsuit with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs concede they did not intend to prosecute their claims, but contend dismissal should have been without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We look to five factors to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing with prejudice for failure to prosecute: “(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.” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). All but the fourth factor weigh in favor of affirming the district court. The first factor (public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation) always favors dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The second factor (the court’s need to manage its docket) also weighs in favor of dismissal. The court, which…