David Hakim; v. MURANO, INC., AKA Urban Mall, a California corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID HAKIM; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MURANO, INC., AKA Urban Mall, a
California corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-55674
D.C. No.
2:15-cv-05633-JVS-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,** District
Judge.
Plaintiffs David Hakim; San Julian Discount Mart, Inc.; and Mybecca, Inc.;
timely appeal the dismissal of their trademark action. Reviewing for abuse of
discretion, Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986), we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 14 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423
(explaining the factors that we consider in evaluating whether dismissal was
appropriate). Following a history of non-compliance with pre-trial deadlines, the
district court’s orders, and the local rules, the district court vacated the trial and
ordered the parties to attend twelve hours of conferences. The district court twice
warned Plaintiffs that their failure to file a fresh pre-trial order on time could lead
to dismissal. Despite those warnings, Plaintiffs did not comply with the deadline
that the district court had set for a new pre-trial order. Nor did Plaintiffs comply
with the district court’s order that Plaintiffs’ lead counsel be present for
discussions with Defendants’ lead counsel. Although public policy favors
disposition of an action on the merits, on this record, Plaintiffs’ pattern of non-
compliance foreclosed any assumption that more time and more effort would have
been fruitful.
Plaintiffs correctly point out that the district court similarly warned
Defendants that their counterclaims were subject to dismissal and that Defendants,
too, contributed to the delay and failed to cooperate. Defense counsel stipulated on
the record, at oral argument, that Defendants will dismiss all counterclaims, with
prejudice. Therefore, we need not decide whether the district court abused its
discretion by not dismissing the counterclaims when it dismissed the complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
action, we need not and do not reach any other issues raised on appeal.
The dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice is AFFIRMED.
Defendants shall promptly dismiss on the district court docket all
counterclaims with prejudice, after which this case will be closed.

-- 3 of 3 --