Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02355/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02355-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Mansfield, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ER Solutions, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-2355 PHX DGC

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Richard Mansfield filed this action in West Mesa Justice Court.

Defendant ER Solutions, Inc. removed the action to this Court on November 10, 2009. On

November 18, 2009, the Court issued an Order Setting Rule 16 Case Management

Conference. Dkt. #8. The order required the parties to meet and confer in preparation for

a case management conference, and placed the obligation on Plaintiff to initiate such

discussions. Id. at 4. 

Despite this order, Plaintiff did not initiate case management discussions, nor did he

respond when Defendant attempted to initiate such discussions. As Defendant’s subsequent

filing indicates, Defendant attempted to place a telephone call to Plaintiff, but found that his

phone had been disconnected. Defendant’s counsel then sent Plaintiff a letter summarizing

the information contained in this Court’s order, and suggesting a date for the parties to meet

and confer. Counsel for Defendant provided Plaintiff with a toll-free number for the purpose

of this conference call, but Plaintiff did not respond to the letter and did not participate in the

conference call. Defense counsel again attempted to contact Plaintiff by telephone, but

Case 2:09-cv-02355-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

learned again that the number had been disconnected. As a result of these unsuccessful

efforts, Defendant filed a case management plan on its own. Dkt. #10.

The case management conference was held as scheduled on January 8, 2010. Plaintiff

failed to appear. Defense counsel explained during the conference that he had received a

telephone call from Plaintiff in late December. Plaintiff said he was attempting to retain

counsel and either he or his counsel would be at the case management conference. Neither

appeared.

On January 12, 2010 this Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to file a

memorandum explaining why he has failed to comply with the Court’s orders. Dkt. #14.

Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to file the required memoranda and show cause for his

failure to comply with the rules of the Court, this case would be dismissed for lack of

prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has failed to

file the memorandum required by the January 12, 2010 order.

In determining whether a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal under

Rule 41(b), a district court must weigh five factors: “‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of the litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice

to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Valley Engineers, Inc. v. Electric

Engineering Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d

128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.

1999). Because Plaintiff has refused to prosecute this case and follow the Court’s orders, the

first three factors favor dismissal. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal.

Applying the fifth factor, the Court has considered less drastic sanctions than dismissal, but

Plaintiff has made clear that he will not comply with the Court’s orders even when warned

that dismissal will result. No sanction short of dismissal will result in Plaintiff’s compliance.

Considering all five factors, dismissal under Rule 41(b) is warranted. 

Case 2:09-cv-02355-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 3rd day of February, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02355-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 3