Kelly v. Cubesmart
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-05470
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Kelly v. Cubesmart, Judge Gilliam dismissed Kelly’s case for failing to prosecute after she repeatedly disobeyed court orders and missed required proceedings.
Cynthia Renee Kelly’s case was dismissed, and the defendants received judgment in their favor; pending motions were denied as moot and the case was closed.
What happened
In Kelly v. Cubesmart, Cynthia Renee Kelly did not file an amended complaint after the court gave her 28 days to do so. She also did not file required case-management statements or attend scheduled conferences, while continuing to object to the court’s decisions.
The court warned Kelly that failing to file a statement and attend the November 14, 2023 conference could result in dismissal. Kelly did not appear. The court found that her repeated refusal to participate delayed the case, interfered with managing the court’s work, prejudiced the defendants and judicial process, and continued despite warnings and offers of help.
The court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, deny pending motions as moot, and close the case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
The detailed version
- Kelly v. Cubesmart · No. 4:22-cv-05470
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 17, 2023
Background
The case was removed to the Northern District of California on September 26, 2022. The defendants filed motions to dismiss and strike. On June 21, 2023, the court granted the Lewis Brisbois defendants’ motion to strike, granted in part and denied in part the Cubesmart defendants’ motion to dismiss, and denied the Cubesmart defendants’ motion to strike. The court gave Cynthia Renee Kelly 28 days to file an amended complaint on claims for which amendment was allowed.
Kelly never filed an amended complaint. She also did not file anything stating that she declined to amend and wished to proceed on the claims remaining after the court’s dismissal order. Instead, she filed documents objecting to the court’s handling of the case. The Ninth Circuit dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders she appealed were not final appealable orders.
The court scheduled several case-management conferences. Kelly did not timely file the required case-management statements and did not attend the September 26 or November 14 conferences. The court repeatedly continued the conference, explained that Kelly had to follow its orders even if she disagreed with them, and warned that failing to file the required statement and attend the November 14 conference could lead to dismissal. The court also twice directed her to the Legal Help Center for people representing themselves.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or fails to comply with court orders. The court considered five factors: the public’s interest in resolving cases promptly, 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 also required unreasonable delay to support dismissal.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Kelly’s refusal to submit case-management statements and attend conferences prevented the case from moving forward and caused unnecessary delay. Her noncompliance also consumed court resources and interfered with docket management.
The court found prejudice to the defendants and the judicial process because Kelly repeatedly refused to participate, while making clear that her reason was disagreement with the court’s decisions rather than an inability to comply. The court emphasized that disagreement with an order does not excuse failing to follow it.
The court also found that less severe measures had not worked. It had continued the conferences several times, warned Kelly that dismissal was possible, and informed her about the Legal Help Center. The court concluded that no less severe step was likely to produce compliance because Kelly had stated that she would not participate.
The factor favoring decisions on the merits weighed against dismissal, but the court concluded that the other factors supported dismissal.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders under Rule 41(b). It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants, deny all pending motions as moot, and close the case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.