Garcia-Rabago v. Hong

Background

Plaintiff Ana Gabriela Garcia-Rabago’s attorney, Patricia Mireles, sought permission to withdraw from the case because communication with Garcia-Rabago had broken down and effective representation had become unreasonably difficult. Mireles also informed the Court that Garcia-Rabago was no longer able to pay her. Garcia-Rabago appeared at two of five court meetings and said she intended to hire new counsel. She later told the Court that she had not retained new counsel because she could not afford to do so.

The Court gave Garcia-Rabago additional time to retain counsel and set another hearing for June 26, 2025. Garcia-Rabago did not appear. The Court then issued an order requiring her to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. She did not respond. A second order again required a response and warned that the case would be dismissed unless she responded by July 29, 2025. Neither Garcia-Rabago nor Mireles filed the requested materials. Mireles also did not comply with two later orders directing her to file a declaration about providing Garcia-Rabago with the Court’s order.

Court’s Analysis

The Court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. Applying the five-factor test used in the Ninth Circuit, the Court concluded that four factors favored dismissal: the public’s interest in promptly resolving cases, the Court’s need to manage its docket, prejudice resulting from the case remaining at a standstill, and the ineffectiveness of less severe measures. The public policy favoring decisions on the merits weighed against dismissal.

The Court found that Garcia-Rabago’s failure to attend the hearing and respond to the orders, together with Mireles’s failure to comply with multiple orders, justified dismissal despite the preference for deciding cases on their merits. The Court also found that its warnings and additional opportunities to respond had not advanced the case.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DISMISSED Garcia-Rabago’s case without prejudice to renewal under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk was directed to close the file. The Court TERMINATED AS MOOT Mireles’s motions to withdraw as counsel, Docket Nos. 9 and 23.

The Court separately directed Mireles to show cause—explain why—she should not be sanctioned or referred to the district’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for failing to comply with three Court orders. Mireles was ordered to file a statement of five pages or less by September 10, 2025, and the Court stated that failure to respond could lead to an investigation without further notice.