Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04982/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04982-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK ONG, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

WORLD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. et al., 

Defendants. /

No. 09-04982 EDL

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

 The Complaint in this matter was filed on October 20, 2010 and an initial case management

conference was set for January 26, 2010. On January 25, 2010, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a request to

continue the case management on the basis that not all parties had been served and located. The

request was granted and the case management conference was continued to May 4, 2010. Without

explanation, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the May 4, 2010 case management conference,

while counsel for several of the defendants did appear. Plaintiff’s case management conference

statement of April 27, 2010 stated that Plaintiff was “still trying to locate” two of the named

defendants, World Financial Services and Yama Marifat, and would make a decision as to whether

to serve by publication or dismiss these defendants within 30 days. Due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s

failure to appear, the case management conference was again continued to June 8, 2010. 

Plaintiff’s counsel again failed to appear at the June 8, 2010 case management conference. 

Instead, she arrived at Court approximately one hour late and stated that she left a voice mail

message after the conference was set to begin notifying the Court that she was delayed. The Court

searched for any record of this untimely message on both its chambers line and courtroom deputy

line, but did not receive any such message. Counsel for several of the defendants did timely appear

at the June 8, 2010 case management conference and stated that they have had no recent contact with

Case 3:09-cv-04982-EDL Document 33 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff’s counsel, though Plaintiff’s counsel filed an “Updated Joint Case Management Statement”

purportedly signed by all counsel on June 4, 2010. Additionally, this case management statement

again claims that Plaintiff is “still trying to locate” two of the named defendants, and will make a

decision as to whether to serve by publication or dismiss these defendants within 30 days. Therefore

it appears that no action has been taken with respect to service of these defendants following the

April 27, 2010 statement promising to serve or dismiss them within 30 days. With respect to other

defendants who have been served, including GMAC, no answer or dismissal has been filed and no

default has been taken, though there is some indication that Plaintiff has settled with this party. 

Because almost eight months elapsed since the Complaint was filed and Ms. Pimentel failed to

appear at two Court-ordered case management conferences or to serve, dismiss, or take the default of

all named defendants, the Court issued an Order to Show cause as to why this case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Order to

Show Cause specifically warned Ms. Pimentel that failure to file a declaration or to show that the

failure to appear and to timely serve, dismiss, or take the default of all named defendants were

excusable may result in dismissal of this case. Ms. Pimentel responded to this Order to Show Cause

by explaining that she missed the June 8, 2010 case management conference due to traffic, and

submitted documentation indicating that she called the Clerk’s Office one minute before the

conference was set to begin and was transferred to what she thought was this Court’s voice mail and

left a message. However, Ms. Pimentel’s response does not address her failure to appear at the first

case management conference or her failure to serve, dismiss, or take the default of all named

defendants after more than eight months, despite repeated promises to do so. The Court therefore

finds this response to be inadequate.

For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for

failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04982-EDL Document 33 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2