Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04730/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04730-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL L. KATSCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04730-BLF 

ORDER SUBMITTING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITHOUT ORAL

ARGUMENT AND VACATING 

HEARING ON MOTION; AND 

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

[RE: ECF 28]

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action based upon 

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended pleading within the time provided by the Court. Defendant’s 

motion was filed on March 12, 2015 and noticed for hearing on April 23, 2015. Any opposition to 

the motion was due on or before March 26, 2015. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (opposition due fourteen 

days after motion is filed). Plaintiff has not filed opposition. Having determined that the motion 

is appropriate for disposition without oral argument, the Court hereby submits the motion and 

vacates the hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

 I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action in the San Benito County Superior Court on September 17, 2014, 

seeking among other things an injunction preventing Defendant from foreclosing on his home. 

Notice of Removal, ECF 1. Plaintiff acknowledged in his complaint that he had defaulted on his 

home mortgage loan, but he asserted that Defendant was negligent in negotiating a loan 

modification in good faith and had engaged in unfair business practices in violation of California 

Business and Professions Code § 17200. Id. Following removal of the action, this Court granted

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Order of Feb. 9, 2015, ECF 27. The 

Case 5:14-cv-04730-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court gave Plaintiff until March 3, 2015 to file an amended complaint. Id. 

Plaintiff did not amend his complaint within the time provided and still has not amended it. 

On March 12, 2015, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss the action under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s order. Motion to Dismiss, ECF 28. 

Also on March 12, 2015, the parties filed a joint case management statement (“Statement”) in 

advance of a case management conference scheduled for March 19, 2015. See Joint CMC 

Statement, ECF 29. The Statement clearly indicated the date of the case management conference 

and it made express reference to Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss based upon Plaintiff’s 

failure to file an amended complaint. See id. 

The Court held the scheduled case management conference on March 19, 2015. See

Minute Entry, ECF 30. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear. See id. Plaintiff’s counsel also failed 

to appear at an ADR telephone conference scheduled for March 19, 2015. See ADR Remark, ECF 

Unnumbered Entry dated 3/19/2015. Counsel advised the Court later on March 19, 2015 that he 

was ill. Finally, as noted above, Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant’s pending motion to 

dismiss.1 

 II. DISCUSSION

Rule 41(b) provides in relevant part that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply 

with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against 

it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails to amend his 

complaint after the district judge dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, the dismissal is 

typically considered a dismissal for failing to comply with a court order rather than for failing to 

prosecute the claim.” Yourish v. Calif. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). Because a 

 

1

The Court notes that the two most recent case management statements have been filed under the 

name Martin Cutler as attorney for Plaintiff. See Statement filed Feb. 5, 2015, ECF 25; Statement 

filed Mar. 12, 2015, ECF 29. This is concerning because, although Mr. Cutler appears to be 

associated with counsel of record Mr. Akwo’s law firm, Mr. Cutler is not counsel of record. See

Civ. L.R. 5-1(c)(2) (requiring that a Notice of Appearance must be e-filed whenever counsel joins 

a case). More troubling is that the California State Bar reports that as of March 16, 2015, Mr. 

Cutler is not authorized to practice law. Counsel of record, Mr. Akwo, has not communicated 

with the Court since December 16, 2014. See Stipulation and Proposed Order filed 12/16/2014, 

ECF 23.

Case 5:14-cv-04730-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Rule 41(b) dismissal is deemed a sanction for disobedience, a district court must take care not to 

impose such sanction if the plaintiff has made an affirmative choice to allow the prior Rule 

12(b)(6) dismissal to ripen into a final, appealable judgment. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 

F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). A plaintiff has the right to simply allow his or her complaint to 

be dismissed. Id. However, in order to exercise that right, the plaintiff must give the court notice 

of his or her intent not to file an amended complaint. Id. If a plaintiff simply fails to take any 

action in response to dismissal with leave to amend under Rule 12(b)(6), the proper course is to 

dismiss under Rule 41(b). Id.

The distinction between these two types of dismissal is important. If a plaintiff 

affirmatively notifies the court of an intent to let a prior Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal ripen into a final, 

appealable order, the resulting dismissal is subject to de novo review on the issue of whether the 

plaintiff stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1065. However, 

a Rule 41(b) dismissal is subject to review only for abuse of discretion. Id. Here, Plaintiff simply 

failed to take any action in response to the Court’s prior dismissal with leave to amend under Rule 

12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not given any indication that he wishes to let the Court’s prior Rule 

12(b)(6) dismissal ripen into a final order. To the contrary, in the Statement filed March 12, 2015, 

Plaintiff puzzlingly indicated that “[i]f required by this court, Plaintiff will amend its [sic] 

complaint.” Statement at 3, ECF 29. Accordingly, Defendant appropriately has brought a motion 

to dismiss under Rule 41(b).

“In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order the 

district court must weigh five factors including: (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 alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 60-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted); see also Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (reciting factors). It is preferred, 

though not required, that the district court make explicit findings showing that it considered these 

factors; however, the appellate court may review the record independently to determine whether a 

dismissal was an abuse of discretion. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261.

Case 5:14-cv-04730-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/30/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

All of these factors except factor 4 – the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits – favor dismissal here. This case has been brought to a standstill by Plaintiff’s failure

to amend, seek an extension of time to amend, or take any other action in response to the Court’s 

dismissal. Plaintiff’s conduct is thwarting the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the 

litigation (factor 1). Plaintiff’s conduct likewise has interfered with the Court’s need to manage its 

docket (factor 2), as Plaintiff not only has failed to amend his pleading, but also has failed to 

appear for a scheduled case management conference, appear for a scheduled ADR telephone 

conference, or respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Failure to dismiss the action would 

prejudice Defendant (factor 3), which is entitled to resolution of Plaintiff’s claims after 

demonstrating that those claims lack merit. Finally, although imposition of a less drastic sanction 

– e.g., requiring Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s costs in bringing the Rule 41(b) motion – may have 

been appropriate had Plaintiff either appeared at the scheduled case management conference or 

filed opposition to Defendant’s motion, the Court sees little point in imposing such a sanction 

when Plaintiff has shown no interest in complying with this Court’s orders or case schedule. “The 

failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum – either by amending the 

complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so – is properly met with the sanction of a 

Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1065.

 III. ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) is GRANTED and the 

action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the Court’s order. 

Dated: March 30, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04730-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/30/15 Page 4 of 4