Dominguez v. City of Berkeley

Background

Richard Doran, Ronald Banyash, and eight other plaintiffs filed a complaint against the City of Berkeley. The complaint alleged that the City’s newly enacted Oversize Vehicle Overnight Ban, Gross Vehicle Weight Limits, and four-hour limit pilot parking program sought to punish residents who lived in vehicles. The complaint asserted ten causes of action under the California and United States Constitutions. Some plaintiffs also asserted claims under state and federal statutes.

The plaintiffs jointly filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court later referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu for settlement. Doran and Banyash did not attend the hearing on the temporary-restraining-order motion. Magistrate Judge Ryu then notified the plaintiffs that the settlement conference was mandatory and warned that a plaintiff who failed to attend could jeopardize the ability to continue participating in the lawsuit.

Doran and Banyash failed to attend three scheduled settlement conferences on April 12, May 6, and May 19, 2022. They were repeatedly told that attendance was mandatory. At the third conference, several other plaintiffs reviewed and agreed to proposed settlement terms and signed a term sheet; two additional plaintiffs did so the following day. The City stated that the proposed settlement could not proceed to City Council consideration unless the action was dismissed, and that the settlement terms were time-sensitive.

Motion and Legal Standard

The City moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss Doran and Banyash without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Rule 41(b) allows a defendant to seek dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court rules or orders.

The court considered the five factors used for a Rule 41(b) dismissal: the public interest in promptly resolving litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants, the availability of less severe sanctions, and the public policy favoring decisions on the merits. The court also considered whether the plaintiffs had received advance notice that dismissal could result from their conduct.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the five factors, considered together, supported dismissal. The interest in promptly resolving the litigation favored dismissal because the participating plaintiffs had agreed to a proposed settlement, but the settlement could not advance while the action remained pending. The court’s docket-management needs also favored dismissal because Doran and Banyash had missed three settlement conferences and had not opposed the motion.

The risk of prejudice to the defendants favored dismissal because the defendants had reached a tentative settlement with eight of the ten plaintiffs, and further delay could jeopardize the time-sensitive settlement terms. The policy favoring decisions on the merits was neutral because the dismissal was without prejudice. The availability of less severe sanctions favored dismissal because Doran and Banyash had repeatedly been warned that failing to attend the conferences could jeopardize their continued participation.

Disposition

The court concluded that dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper but specified that the dismissal would be without prejudice. Judge Susan Illston granted the City’s motion and dismissed the claims of Richard Doran and Ronald Banyash without prejudice. The court stated that they remained free to litigate the matter on the merits in the future if they wished to do so.