Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01479/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01479-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

Kenneth Lavenue, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Sterling Edmunds, Jr., in his official 

capacity as CEO of SunTrust Mortgage; 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 

Inc. (MERS); Crestar Mortgage 

Corporation; and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., 

Defendants.

No. CV-10-1479-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 In mid-July 2010, Plaintiff brought this quiet title action (Doc. 1) and filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin a trustee sale of his home 

(Doc. 4). In an order dated July 20, 2010, the motion was denied for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Doc. 10 at 2. Because the jurisdictional defect arguably could be 

cured by amendment, the motion also was denied because Plaintiff’s “show me the note” 

argument is wholly without merit. Id. at 2-4. 

 More than seven months later, on March 3, 2011, the Court issued an order 

providing that the case would be dismissed in 14 days if Plaintiff did not show good 

cause for his failure to serve process on Defendants. Doc. 11. To date, Plaintiff has filed 

no response to the order to show cause. Nor has he filed a response the motion to dismiss 

filed on March 11, 2011 by Defendants MERS and Bank of America (as successor in 

interest to Crestar Mortgage Corporation). Doc. 12. This case will be dismissed for 

Case 2:10-cv-01479-DGC Document 14 Filed 05/06/11 Page 1 of 3
‐ 2 ‐ 

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 

failure to prosecute, for failure to comply with the rules and the Court’s order to show 

cause, and for lack of jurisdiction. 

 Before dismissing an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the 

rules or an order, the Court must weigh five 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. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 

(9th Cir. 1995). 

 The first two factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff filed this suit more than eight 

months ago (Doc. 1), but apparently has not served process on all Defendants. Plaintiff 

was provided with the order to show cause on March 3, 2011, and the motion to dismiss 

one week later. Docs. 11, 12. He has been provided with sufficient time to respond to 

the order and motion, but has failed to do so. Because the Court and the public have a 

strong interest in judicial efficiency and the prompt resolution of litigation, Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute this action weighs in favor of dismissal. The third factor – risk of 

prejudice to Defendants – also weighs in favor of dismissal. Defendants forced to incur 

expenses and defend themselves in court are prejudiced by a plaintiff’s failure to respond 

to motions or to prosecute the case in a timely and efficient manner. The fourth factor, as 

always, weighs against dismissal. As for the fifth factor, the Court notes that it warned 

Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed if he did not respond to the order to show 

cause. Plaintiff nonetheless chose to disregard the Court’s order. Given this warning, 

and the fact that additional extensions of time would likely elicit the same lack of 

response, the Court concludes that dismissal is warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992). 

 Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 12. Federal 

courts “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,” Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and “the 

Case 2:10-cv-01479-DGC Document 14 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

presumption is that [they are] without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively 

appears,” Fifty Associates. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 

(9th Cir. 1970). Pursuant to federal statutes, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction 

over a case where the complaint alleges a federal cause of action or the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331, 1332(a). 

 As previously explained (Doc. 10 at 2), the complaint, even when liberally 

construed, asserts no cause of action raising a federal question. Nor does it plead 

sufficient facts to establish complete diversity of citizenship. Id. The Court accordingly 

will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. The case is dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply with 

the rules and the Court’s order to show cause (Doc. 11). 

 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 12) is granted. 

 3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this 

action. 

 Dated this 6th day of May, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-01479-DGC Document 14 Filed 05/06/11 Page 3 of 3