Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Robert Gavin filed three related lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Barry Caren, Michelle Caren, and David Caren, pending as cases CV 26-6970, CV 26-7667, and CV 26-9915. On September 17, 2026, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Friedman entered a Stipulated Judgment in a family-law matter between Michelle Gavin and Robert Gavin. Under that judgment, Gavin agreed to dismiss with prejudice "any and all lawsuits, actions, appeals, cross-complaints, counterclaims, and proceedings of any kind" he had filed, including pending actions in Los Angeles Superior Court, the Nevada District Court, and any federal court, within five days of signing.
When the five-day period passed without dismissal, the federal court issued orders to show cause on September 30, 2026, directing Gavin to explain in writing why the three cases should not be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the Stipulated Judgment, and warning that failure to respond by October 9, 2026 could result in sanctions including dismissal with prejudice. Despite this warning, Gavin filed no response. Separately, after the court dismissed his First Amended Complaint in CV 26-6970 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, a September 14, 2026 order granting a motion to quash service and to dismiss warned that failing to file a Second Amended Complaint by September 25, 2026 would be deemed an election to stand on the First Amended Complaint and would result in dismissal without leave to amend; Gavin did not amend. The court also noted that he had not appeared or filed anything in these matters since August 31, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Percy Anderson resolved the matter in chambers without oral argument and dismissed all three actions with prejudice. The court held that it is beyond dispute that the Stipulated Judgment's terms apply to the three actions pending before it, and, deeming Gavin's lack of response to the orders to show cause as consent to dismissal under Local Rule 7-12, dismissed the actions according to the Stipulated Judgment's terms.
The court also independently justified dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Applying the five Henderson factors, the court found that the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court's need to manage its docket favored dismissal; that defendants were prejudiced by further delay because the Stipulated Judgment required dismissal within five days; and that Gavin, although on notice that dismissal with prejudice could result, failed to respond to the orders to show cause in any way or otherwise show that dismissal was unwarranted. Given the Stipulated Judgment's terms, no less drastic remedy was available. The court stated it would issue a judgment in each case consistent with the order.
Key Takeaways
- A state-court stipulated judgment requiring a party to dismiss pending federal lawsuits can be enforced by the federal court through dismissal with prejudice of those actions.
- Failure to respond to an order to show cause may be deemed consent to dismissal under Local Rule 7-12 in the Central District of California.
- Federal courts may dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b) when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders, but must weigh the five Henderson factors first.
- A dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is legally distinct from a grant of a motion to quash service, even when the same order warns that failure to amend will end the case without leave to amend.
- A plaintiff who ignores show-cause orders, an amendment deadline, and every filing for months risks dismissal with prejudice of all related cases in a single order.
Why It Matters
This order shows how federal courts enforce state-court stipulated judgments that require dismissal of related federal actions, and that a plaintiff cannot avoid those consequences simply by ignoring federal show-cause orders and deadlines, as the court deemed his silence consent under Local Rule 7-12.
It also illustrates the Ninth Circuit's Henderson framework for sua sponte dismissals: a complete failure to respond "in any way," combined with a binding stipulated judgment that leaves no room for a lesser sanction, can satisfy every factor favoring dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).