Yang

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to their counsel’s lack of compliance with court orders. We review this decision for an abuse of discretion. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir.1998). Finding no such abuse, we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this litigation, we will not recount it here.

District courts must weigh five factors in addressing a Rule 41(b) motion: “(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.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986). We may affirm the dismissal where “at least four factors support dismissal ... or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399 (citations omitted).

The record supports the district court’s decision to dismiss the action. Four years had passed since the first complaint was filed. The district court’s…