United States v. 2020-06-17 | 19-55352 | JUANITA EPPERSON V. WAL-MART STORES, INC. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUANITA EPPERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.; DOES, 1 to
50,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55352

D.C. No.
2:17-cv-06481-TJH-JEM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Pasadena, California

Before: LIPEZ,
***
RAWLINSON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

In this diversity slip-and-fall case, plaintiff-appellant Juanita Epperson
claims that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her case for failure

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

***
The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the
First Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED

JUN 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-55352
to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). She asserts that
the court should have imposed a less severe sanction for her conceded neglect of
various pretrial scheduling requirements. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, a court
must weigh 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 on their merits; and
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138
F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423
(9th Cir. 1986)). We review for abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal of a
case for lack of prosecution. Id. at 398.
The district court considered each of the five so-called Henderson
factors. First, with respect to managing the docket (factor two), the court stated
that Epperson had failed on multiple occasions to comply with court orders and the
Local Rules. Then, after acknowledging the "policy favoring the disposition of
cases on their merits" (factor four), the court noted the counterbalancing interest of
the public and the parties in the expeditious resolution of disputes (factor one), and
it stated that the delay had prejudiced Wal-Mart's ability "to adequately litigate this
matter" (factor three). Finally, the court stated that it had considered lesser

3 19-55352
sanctions (factor five), but "lack[ed] any belief that Epperson will comply with any
future orders," as evidenced by her past conduct.
The court thus concluded: "After weighing the relevant factors and the
record, dismissal for lack of prosecution is warranted and appropriate." The court
acted well within its discretion with this ruling.
AFFIRMED.