Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02824/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02824-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1640 Truth in Lending

---

1

16-CV-2824 W (RBB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CELIE DUENAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE 

HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-2824 W (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE AS TO 

DEFENDANT ANTOINE CANNON

[DOC. 8]

Pending before the Court is an ex parte application filed by Defendant Antoine

Cannon seeking the entry of an order of dismissal of the case against him with prejudice. 

(Ex Parte Application [Doc. 8].) Despite the lapsing of two weeks since the filing of the 

ex parte application, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, nor have they requested 

additional time to do so. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails . . . to 

comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or 

any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this 

subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits.” “A Rule 41(b) dismissal 

‘must be supported by a showing of unreasonable delay.’ ” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 

Case 3:16-cv-02824-W-RBB Document 9 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-2824 W (RBB)

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

F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986)). The Court should consider the following factors: 

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits[;] and 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (formatting altered from 

original).

On January 11, 2017, Defendant Cannon filed a motion to dismiss. (Def.’s Mot. to 

Dismiss [Doc. 6].) Despite the lapsing of the February 20, 2017 hearing date, Plaintiff 

did not oppose that motion. The Court granted the motion on April 24, 2017, dismissing 

the Complaint as to Defendant Cannon. (April 24, 2017 Order [Doc. 7].) The Court set a 

deadline of Monday, May 8, 2017 for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. (Id.) To 

date, Plaintiff have not filed an amended complaint—nor have they requested additional 

time in which to do so. They have simply ceased to prosecute this matter as to Defendant 

Cannon. This is an unreasonable delay. See Omstead, 594 F.3d at 1084.

Four of the five Henderson factors favor a dismissal of Defendant Cannon from 

this action with prejudice. See 779 F.2d at 1423.

The risk of prejudice to Cannon, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation, and the Court’s need to manage its docket all favor dismissal with prejudice. 

As noted, Cannon filed his motion to dismiss in January of this year, with a hearing date 

in February. Plaintiffs did not oppose. They then allowed the Court’s deadline to amend 

the complaint to lapse. When Cannon filed an ex parte application seeking dismissal 

with prejudice, Plaintiffs did not respond to that either. It is now mid-June. Evidence 

indicates that repeated attempts on the part of Defendant Cannon’s attorney to contact 

Plaintiff’s counsel—by email, fax, and phone—have yielded no response. (See Salas 

Decl. [Doc. 8-3].) Forcing Cannon to remain a defendant in a lawsuit with Plaintiffs who 

will not respond or participate would prejudice his interests. And it would be neither just

Case 3:16-cv-02824-W-RBB Document 9 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-2824 W (RBB)

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

nor efficient for members of the public to have to wait to have their motions heard while 

Plaintiffs repeatedly miss deadlines and decline to prosecute the case.

Moreover, there would appear to be no less-drastic alternative available. As the 

Complaint has already been dismissed with leave to amend as to Defendant Cannon upon 

Plaintiffs’ February failure to respond (See April 24, 2017 Order [Doc. 7]), there are no 

claims left pending against him. A dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) is the 

only avenue left available. Though public policy favors disposition of cases on their 

merits, that policy is difficult to implement when the plaintiff declines to participate in 

litigation. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s ex parte application. [Doc. 8.]

Defendant Cannon is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02824-W-RBB Document 9 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3