Shannon O. Murphy, Esq. v. United Parcel Service

Background

United Parcel Service filed a motion to dismiss. Shannon O. Murphy, Esq. did not file an opposition that complied with the court’s local rules. The court then ordered Murphy to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to meet court deadlines. The order required Murphy to file a declaration and either an opposition or a statement of nonopposition by November 6, 2025. It warned that failing to respond would be treated as an admission that Murphy did not intend to prosecute the case and that dismissal was likely.

No response was received.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered five factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to obey court orders: the public interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the defendant, whether less severe alternatives were available, and the public policy favoring decisions on the merits.

The court found that the first four factors favored dismissal. Murphy’s failure to respond delayed the case and interfered with docket management. The court also found a presumption of prejudice from Murphy’s unexplained failure to prosecute. Before dismissing the case, the court had used a less severe measure by issuing the order to show cause and giving Murphy an opportunity to explain. The fifth factor, favoring decisions on the merits, was at most neutral because Murphy’s failure to meet deadlines prevented the case from moving toward a decision on the merits.

Disposition

The court concluded that at least four of the five factors supported dismissal. It DISMISSED the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s deadlines and orders. The court described dismissal without prejudice as a less severe alternative that minimized prejudice to the defendant and preserved Murphy’s ability to seek relief. The clerk was directed to terminate the matter. The opinion did not decide the merits of United Parcel Service’s motion to dismiss.