
    IN RE: AMERICAN APPAREL, INC., 2014 DERIVATIVE SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Peter Kravitz, as Trustee for and on behalf of AAI Litigation Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dov Charney, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56258
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 29, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed August 31, 2017
    Todd M. Brooks, Attorney, Kevin Hrob-lak, Whiteford Taylor <& Preston LLP, Baltimore, MD, Scott Gautier, David She-mano, Robins Kaplan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for In re: American Apparel, Inc.
    Todd M. Brooks, Attorney, Kevin Hrob-lak, Whiteford Taylor <& Preston LLP, Baltimore, MD, Scott Gautier, Robins Kaplan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Seth Aben Aonson, Attorney, Courtney L. Gould, William Ka Hing Pao, Attorney, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Todd M. Brooks, Attorney, Kevin Hrob-lak, Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant-Appellee American Apparel, Inc.
    Travis Biffar, Jones Day, Irvine, CA, John P. Stigi, III, Attorney, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los An-geles, CA, Defendants-Appellees David Danziger, Robert Greene, Marvin Igelman, William Mauer, Alan Mayer
    Before: WARDLAW and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and ILLSTON, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Litigation Trustee Peter Kravitz appeals the district court’s order of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case under Rule 41(b). See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992). On this record, the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal and the district court was not required to issue a clear warning or attempt less drastic alternatives before dismissing the action without prejudice.

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