Akinlemibola v. Intuit, Inc.

Background

Grace Akinlemibola, who represented herself, sued Intuit Inc. on five claims under California law. Intuit moved to dismiss. On March 27, 2025, the court granted that motion with leave to amend in part: it dismissed the negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims without leave to amend, while allowing Akinlemibola to amend her defamation, tortious-interference-with-prospective-economic-advantage, and fraud claims by April 18, 2025.

Akinlemibola did not file an amended complaint. She instead filed motions seeking reconsideration and disqualification of the judge; the court dismissed those motions. On April 29, 2025, the court ordered her to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. She opposed dismissal but stated that she refused to amend her complaint because she believed the original complaint was correct. She also filed a later response without the court’s permission.

Ruling

The court held that Akinlemibola failed to comply with the March 27 order and failed to prosecute her case. It relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or obey a court order, Rule 16(f), and the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. The court stated that the relevant dismissal factors favored dismissal, including the public interest in resolving cases efficiently, docket management, the absence of prejudice to Intuit, and the availability and use of less drastic alternatives.

The order dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Intuit. It vacated the May 28, 2025, show-cause hearing and terminated Akinlemibola’s motion to appear remotely at that hearing as moot.