Fordjour

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs-Appellants Charles and Angela Fordjour (the “Fordjours”) appeal pro se the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice of their action against Angela’s former employer, Southwall Technologies, Inc., and others (collectively, Defendant Appellee “Southwall”), pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Fordjours’ action under Rule 41(b), we affirm.

The District Court properly exercised its discretion by allowing the Fordjours several opportunities to amend their complaint and providing ample notice that failure to comply with court orders would result in dismissal. See Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th Cir. 1987). Specifically, in a case involving plaintiffs, like the Fordjours, “[who] given the opportunity to amend [their complaint] or be dismissed, did nothing, ” as opposed to “makfing] an affirmative choice not to *353 amend, and clearly communicating] that choice to the court,” a Rule 41(b) dismissal is the appropriate sanction. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir .2004).

In addition, the District Court properly dismissed…