Cantran Group, Inc. v. Cups, LLC, 020720 FED9, 18-56545

Docket Nº:18-56545
Party Name:CANTRAN GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUPS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; SMA GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; THE BRIAD GROUP, a registered service mark; THE BRIAD RESTRAURANT GROUP, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 07, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

CANTRAN GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CUPS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; SMA GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; THE BRIAD GROUP, a registered service mark; THE BRIAD RESTRAURANT GROUP, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56545

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 7, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 4, 2020 [**] Pasadena, California

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02044-R-RAO

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Cantran Group, Inc. appeals from the district court's judgment of dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for failure to timely oppose defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), we reverse and remand.

While district courts have broad discretion to enforce local rules, see Delange v. Dutra Constr. Co., 183 F.3d 916, 919 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), before dismissing an action as a sanction for noncompliance with those rules, a court is required to consider five factors: "(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The public's interest in expeditious litigation plays only a negligible role here because resolving the motions on the merits would have required, at most, a brief continuance of the scheduled hearing date.

A plaintiff's willful impairment of a district court's docket management supports a dismissal sanction, see Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Nat. Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995), but the district court's finding that Cantran engaged in a "pattern of repeated [filing]...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP