Koster v. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc.

Background

Cindy L. Koster brought this action against Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., identified in the opinion as her former employer. Koster refused to participate in a scheduled mediation in December 2020 and did not meaningfully participate in discovery. On March 10, 2021, the court granted Burton Employment Law’s motion to withdraw as Koster’s counsel. Koster said at that hearing that she expected to retain new counsel within two weeks.

The court continued the matter to April 6, 2021, but Koster did not appear at the case-management conference on that date. The court then issued an order requiring Koster to file a declaration by April 27, 2021. The declaration had to state whether she wanted to continue the case, whether she would represent herself or be represented by counsel, why she missed the conference and mediation, and whether she would comply with her responsibilities as a litigant. Koster did not file the declaration or otherwise respond.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that district courts may dismiss an action on their own authority for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It considered five factors:

The court found that the first two factors favored dismissal because Koster had been given ample opportunity to prosecute the case, and her failure to participate prevented the case from moving forward. The third factor also favored dismissal because unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption that the defendant was prejudiced, and nothing in the record made that presumption inappropriate.

The court recognized that the policy favoring decisions on the merits ordinarily weighs against dismissal. It concluded, however, that this policy did not outweigh Koster’s failure to move the case forward at a reasonable pace. The fifth factor favored dismissal because Koster had not complied with her litigation responsibilities since at least December 2020, had been warned that the action would be dismissed, and had not used the opportunity to show that she wanted to proceed.

Ruling

Judge William Orrick found that the factors favored dismissal. The action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The hearing scheduled for May 4, 2021, was vacated.