Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00907/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00907-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD PASCUAL and ANGELICA 

PASCUAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, 

INC., and NATIONAL DEFAULT

SERVICING CORPORATION,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0907 KJM DAD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This matter came before the court on June 5, 2015, for hearing of defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. Attorney Bao Vu appeared telephonically for the defendants. Despite being served with 

notice of the motion neither plaintiff filed a written opposition nor did they file a statement of 

non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Moreover, neither plaintiff appeared at the 

hearing of the motion, nor did anyone appear on behalf of either plaintiff.

Accordingly, on June 9, 2015, the undersigned issued an order to show cause in writing 

within fourteen days as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. 

No. 10.) Plaintiffs were cautioned that failure to file a written response to that order would result 

in the undersigned recommending that this matter be dismissed. (Id.) Nonetheless, the time for 

/////

Case 2:15-cv-00907-KJM-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/08/15 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

plaintiffs to respond has expired and neither plaintiff has responded to the court’s order in any 

way.

ANALYSIS

The factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution 

are as follows: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 

disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Hernandez v. City of 

El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 

1992); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal is a harsh penalty that 

should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 398; Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1260.

Failure of a party to comply with the any order of the court “may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or herself 

without an attorney is nonetheless bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local 

Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). A party’s failure to comply with applicable 

rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local 

Rules. Id.

Here, plaintiffs have failed to file a timely response to defendants’ motion to dismiss and 

failed to appear at the hearing of the properly noticed motion, in violation of multiple provisions 

of Local Rule 230. Moreover, the court issued an order to show cause that provided plaintiffs 

with yet another opportunity to show good cause for their failure to respond to defendants’ 

motion but plaintiffs failed to respond to that order in any way. The order to show cause 

specifically warned plaintiffs that the failure to file a written response to that order would result in 

a recommendation that this matter be dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ lack of prosecution of this case renders the imposition of monetary sanctions 

futile. Moreover, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to 

manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants all support the imposition of the 

Case 2:15-cv-00907-KJM-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/08/15 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

sanction of dismissal. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against 

dismissal. However, plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the action in any way makes disposition on 

the merits an impossibility. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be 

dismissed due to plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute as well as their failure to comply with the court’s 

orders. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs’ February 3, 2015

complaint (Dkt. No. 1-3) be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 7, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\pascual0907.dlop.f&rs.docx

Case 2:15-cv-00907-KJM-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/08/15 Page 3 of 3