DSNR Media Group Ltd v. Vdopia, Inc.

Background

DSNR Media Group Ltd. and DSNR Media Innovations Ltd. sued Vdopia, Inc. and individual defendants over multiple claims arising from two contracts. On June 2, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the contracts’ arbitration provision covered the DSNRs’ claims and that the claims against individual defendants were barred for acts taken as Vdopia employees. The court gave the DSNRs until June 22, 2020, to file an amended complaint.

The DSNRs did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the court’s order during the more than eight months that followed.

Failure to Prosecute

Failure to prosecute means failing to move a case forward. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court orders.

The court evaluated five factors: the public interest in promptly resolving litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe sanctions were available.

The court found that the first two factors favored dismissal because the DSNRs had not filed an amended complaint, leaving the operative complaint deficient under the earlier dismissal order. The third factor also favored dismissal because unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to defendants. Although the policy favoring decisions on the merits ordinarily weighed against dismissal, the court concluded that it did not outweigh the DSNRs’ failure to meet the deadline. The fifth factor favored dismissal because the DSNRs had been given ample opportunity to amend.

Disposition

Judge William Orrick held that the factors favored dismissal and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders under Rule 41(b).