Hunter

MEMORANDUM *

Sharlyn Hunter appeals the district court’s dismissal of her case under Rule 41(b) for lack of prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 1294, and we affirm in part and reverse in part.

In dismissing both of Hunter’s putative class claims for failure to prosecute, the district court weighed the following 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 defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). It found that all but the fifth factor favored dismissal. See id. (noting that when reviewing a district court’s dismissal, we “may affirm ... where at least four *29 factors support dismissal, ... or where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Hunter argued to the district court that, as an alternative sanction to dismissal, she should be required to dismiss her second, fact-based claim but allowed to maintain her first claim. 1 We affirm…