Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Robert Gavin filed three separate federal lawsuits in the Central District of California against Barry Caren, Michelle Caren, and David Caren. 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. In that judgment, Robert Gavin agreed to dismiss with prejudice "any and all lawsuits, actions, appeals, cross-complaints, counterclaims, and proceedings of any kind" including all pending actions in state and federal court, within five days of signing.
When the five-day period expired without dismissal, Judge Percy Anderson issued orders to show cause on September 30, 2026, directing Gavin to explain in writing why the three federal cases should not be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment. The court warned that failure to respond by October 9, 2026 could result in sanctions including dismissal with prejudice. Gavin filed no response. Additionally, in case number 26-6970, the court's September 14, 2026 Order granting the Motion to Quash Service and to Dismiss stated that failure 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 of the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. Gavin did not file an amended complaint, and the court noted he had not appeared or filed anything in these matters since August 31, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Anderson dismissed all three actions with prejudice. The court found the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument and stated that it is beyond dispute that the Stipulated Judgment's terms apply to the three actions pending before the Court. The court deemed Gavin's lack of response to the orders to show cause as consent to the dismissal under Local Rule 7-12, which provides that failure to file a required paper may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.
The court also relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal with prejudice when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. Applying the five-factor test from Henderson v. Duncan, the court found that all factors favored dismissal: the public's interest in expeditious resolution, the court's need to manage its docket, prejudice to defendants from further delay given the Stipulated Judgment's terms, the plaintiff's notice that dismissal could result, and the unavailability of less drastic sanctions given the settlement agreement's explicit requirements. The court concluded that the Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissing the three actions and will issue a Judgment in each case consistent with the Order.
Key Takeaways
- A stipulated judgment in state court that requires dismissal of federal actions can be enforced by the federal court through dismissal with prejudice when the plaintiff fails to comply.
- Failure to respond to an order to show cause, after explicit warning that dismissal may result, can be deemed consent to dismissal under Local Rule 7-12 in the Central District of California.
- Federal courts may dismiss cases sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders, applying the five Henderson factors before imposing the drastic sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
- When a plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint after being warned that failure to amend will be deemed an election to stand on the dismissed pleading, the court may dismiss the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend.
- A plaintiff's pattern of non-compliance—including failing to respond to orders, failing to amend, and failing to appear or file anything for an extended period—demonstrates abandonment of claims and failure to diligently prosecute.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces that federal courts will enforce settlement agreements requiring dismissal of pending federal actions, even when the settlement was reached in state court proceedings. Litigants who enter into stipulated judgments must take affirmative steps to dismiss their federal cases or risk having those cases dismissed with prejudice by the court.
The decision also illustrates the application of the Henderson factors in the Ninth Circuit for sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b). The court walked through each of the five factors and found them weighing in favor of dismissal where a plaintiff has been warned of the consequences of non-compliance and fails to respond or prosecute the case, making dismissal with prejudice an appropriate sanction to preserve the orderly administration of justice.