Lawson v. Aleutian Spray Fisheries Inc et al - Document 59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 DAVID LAWSON, Plaintiff, 11 ORDER ON DIRECTION TO SHOW CAUSE v. 12 13 CASE NO. C11-0061JLR ALEUTIAN SPRAY FISHERIES, INC., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court are: (1) Plaintiff David Lawson’s response to the court’s order to 17 either file a motion for default or to show cause why Defendants Khana Marine Ltd. 18 (“Khana Marine”), Eastern Reefer AS (“Eastern Reefer”), and M/V JACHA should not 19 be dismissed (Dkt. # 50); (2) Mr. Lawson’s motion to sever and transfer in rem claims 20 against Defendant M/V JACHA to the District of Alaska (Dkt. # 40); and (3) Mr. 21 Lawson’s motion to sever and transfer certain in personam claims against Defendants 22 ORDER- 1 1 Khana Marine and Eastern Reefer to the District of Alaska (Dkt. # 52). The court finds 2 Mr. Lawson’s response to its order to show cause (Dkt. # 50) to be inadequate and 3 therefore dismisses Khana Marine, Eastern Reefer and M/V JACHA for lack of 4 prosecution. The court also denies Mr. Lawson’s motions to transfer (Dkt. ## 40, 52). 5 6 II. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS This matter has been pending for more than one year. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) 7 (filed on January 12, 2011).) Since that time, Defendants Khana Marine and Eastern 8 Reefer have appeared (Dkt. # 9), but have never answered. Mr. Lawson admits that he 9 has failed to serve these defendants. (Resp. (Dkt. # 50) at 2.) The record is also devoid 10 of any proof of service, a notice of appearance, or an answer on behalf of M/V JACHA. 11 At the hearing on January 4, 2012, the court ordered Mr. Lawson to file a motion for 12 default against Khana Marine, Eastern Reefer, and M/V JACHA within ten days or show 13 cause why these defendants should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (See Min. 14 Entry (Dkt. # 44).) 15 On January 17, 2012, Mr. Lawson filed a response to the court’s order to show 16 cause. 1 (Resp. (Dkt. # 50).) In his response, Mr. Lawson states that he must serve both 17 both Khana Marine and Eastern Reefer using the process established under the Hague 18 Convention, and that such service will cost between $600.00-$800.00 and take six 19 20 1 The court ordered Mr. Lawson to respond to its order to show cause within ten days. (See Min. Entry.) Tens days following the court’s order fell on Saturday, January 14, 2012, and 21 the following Monday, January 16, 2012 was a federal holiday. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(3)(A), the deadline for responding to the court’s order to 22 show cause fell on Tuesday, January 17, 2012. ORDER- 2 1 months or more to accomplish. (Resp. at 2.) Mr. Lawson asserts that he failed to 2 promptly initiate service upon these defendants (1) because he was under the mistaken 3 belief that his action against Eastern Reefer would not relate back to the original filing 4 date of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and was therefore time 5 barred (id. at 2-3), and (2) because “the time and expense [of] serving Khana Marine” 6 under the Hague Convention was too great in light of “the likelihood that Khana Marine 7 [] would then claim it was not the proper defendant ” (id. at 3). 8 In addition, although Mr. Lawson sued Khana Marine and Eastern Reefer in the 9 Western District of Washington, he now believes that the existence of personal 10 jurisdiction over these defendants in this district is “debatable.” (Resp. at 4.) Plaintiff 11 asserts that, although he has not served, or even begun the process of serving, any of 12 these defendants in over a year, the court should nevertheless transfer his in rem claims 13 against M/V JACHA and his in personam claims against Khana Marine and Eastern 14 Reefer to the District of Alaska. 2 (See Resp. at 4; Mot. to Trans. In Rem Claims (Dkt. # 15 40); Mot. to Trans. In Pers. Claims (Dkt. # 52).) 16 A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for unreasonable failure to 17 prosecute. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to prosecute 18 must be unreasonable in order to support dismissal); Henderson v. Duncan, 770 F.2d 19 20 2 Mr. Lawson also filed a reply memorandum in support of his motion to sever and transfer the in rem claims against M/V JACHA in order “to call to the Court’s attention the fact 21 that no Opposition has been filed.” (Reply (Dkt. # 49) at 1.) The lack of an opposition from M/V JACHA is not surprising since there is no indication on the record that M/V JACHA has 22 ever been served, appeared, or received notice of the motion. ORDER- 3 1 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[D]ismissal for lack of prosecution must be supported by a 2 showing of unreasonable delay.”) A district court must consider five factors to determine 3 whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution: (1) the public’s interst in expeditious 4 resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice 5 to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits, 6 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 7 1994); Sw. Marine Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal is 8 proper when at least four factors support dismissal or where at least three factors 9 “strongly” support dismissal. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 10 1998). The court has considered these factors, and finds their application to this case 11 favors dismissal of Mr. Lawson’s claims against M/V JACHA, Khana Marine and 12 Eastern Reefer. 13 The first two factors – the public interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation 14 and the court’s need to manage its docket – weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. Mr. 15 Lawson asserts that given the long time required to serve a defendant under the Hague 16 Convention, it is unlikely that either Khana Marine or Eastern Reefer would have been 17 served by this point in the litigation even if he had promptly begun the process under the 18 Hague Convention near the beginning of this suit. (Resp. at 6.) Mr. Lawson misses the 19 point. By delaying even the start of the process for more than a year, Mr. Lawson has 20 ensured that these defendants will not be served under the Hague Convention for many 21 more additional months. Trial in this matter is set for July 16, 2012. (Sched. Ord. (Dkt. # 22 14).) Based on Mr. Lawson’s calculations – that service under the Hague Convention ORDER- 4 1 takes six months or more – it is doubtful that he will be able to accomplish service prior 2 to the trial date. Indeed, the court does not know if Mr. Lawson will ever be able to 3 accomplish service on these defendants, and without effective service the litigation 4 cannot proceed through the necessary steps to resolution. 3 5 The third factor – the risk of prejudice to the defendants – also weighs in favor of 6 dismissal. The events upon which this case is based occurred in January 2008, more than 7 four years ago. If the court were to permit the case against to go forward, given the 8 length of time that Mr. Lawson states will be necessary to accomplish service of process 9 under the Hague Convention, it is doubtful that the court will be able to maintain the 10 present trial date of July 16, 2012. Indeed, it is doubtful that Mr. Lawson will even have 11 accomplished service by that date. (See Resp. at 2, 6.) The longer the suit is delayed, the 12 more witnesses’ memories will fade, and the more difficult it will be to defend the case. 13 The fourth factor generally weighs against dismissal based on the strong public 14 policy favoring resolution of claims on their merits. Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 15 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996). In this case, however, Mr. Lawson has failed to even 16 serve his complaint on three defendants after more than one year of litigation, “thus 17 undermining this court’s ability to fully address the allegations.” Travenia v. Woodland 18 City, No. CIV S-06-2498 MCE GGH PS, 2007 WL 4557116, at * 5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 19 20 3 Mr. Lawson has requested severance and transfer to the District of Alaska which would at least arguably remove the case against these three defendants from this court’s docket. This 21 court, however, is unwilling to transfer a case which has been so grossly mismanaged in its prosecution to another federal district court. This would simply result in transferring a problem 22 of docket management from one court to another, which this court will not do. ORDER- 5 1 2007). Indeed, this court should not be tasked with addressing the merits of Mr. 2 Lawson’s claims because he has effectively abandoned his claims by failing to even 3 attempt service of process for more than a year, particularly at the expense of delaying 4 the resolution of other, actively pursued, claims. See id. at *4; see also Ryan v. BAC 5 Home Loans Serv. LP, No. CIV S-10-2928 WBS GGH PS, 2011 WL 703677, at *3 (E.D. 6 Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) (“[T]his court is put in the untenable position of expending limited 7 judicial resources to decide . . . [an effectively abandoned] case on the merits.”). 8 Accordingly, under the facts of this case, the court finds that this factor also weighs in 9 favor of dismissal. 10 The fifth factor – the availability of less drastic sanctions – also weighs in favor of 11 dismissal. Mr. Lawson has had ample opportunity to pursue his claims, including the 12 most recent opportunity to respond to the court’s order to show cause. Mr. Lawson’s 13 counsel’s excuses that he misunderstood the “relation back” principles of Federal Rule of 14 Civil Procedure 15, and that he was possibly mistaken as to the availability of personal 15 jurisdiction in this district with regard to these defendants, are inadequate to explain more 16 than a year’s delay in service of process. See Pacheco v. Paul Fin., No. S-10-0085 GEB 17 GGH PS, 2010 WL 2076946, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2010) (finding that lack of 18 knowledge concerning the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was insufficient to excuse 19 delay in filing responsive memorandum or to avoid dismissal). On the basis of these 20 facts, there is no feasible less drastic sanction. It would inappropriate to impose 21 monetary sanctions to coerce timely prosecution of Mr. Lawson’s claims, and this 22 sanction would not remedy the prejudice to defendants. Accordingly, the court dismisses ORDER- 6 1 Mr. Lawson’s claims against M/V JACHA, Khana Marine and Eastern Reefer without 2 prejudice for failure to timely prosecute. 4 Further, the court denies Mr. Lawson’s 3 motions to transfer the in rem claims against M/V JACHA and the in personam claims 4 against Khana Marine and Eastern Reefer. 5 6 III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the court finds Mr. Lawson’s response to its order to show 7 cause (Dkt. # 50) to be inadequate, and DISMISSES Mr. Lawson’s claims against M/V 8 JACHA, Khana Marine and Eastern Reefer without prejudice for failure to prosecute. In 9 addition, the court DENIES Mr. Lawson’s motions to sever and transfer these claims to 10 the District of Alaska (Dkt. ## 40, 52). 11 Dated this 24th day of January, 2012. 12 14 A 15 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 13 16 17 18 19 20 4 See Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495–97 (9th Cir. 1984) (explaining that “dismissal without prejudice is a more easily justified sanction for failure to prosecute,” and that “[a] relatively brief period of delay is sufficient to justify the district court’s sending a litigant to the 22 back of the line.”). 21 ORDER- 7