Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00330/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00330-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—C-06-00330 RMW

SPT

E-FILED on 1/17/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL ARIKAT AND PASIMA

ARIKAT, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.; LOWE'S HIW,

INC.; MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES,

INC.; MBNA MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.;

MIDCOAST CREDIT CORP.; DISCOVER

FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; HOME

DEPOT U.S.A., INC.; SEARS, ROEBUCK

AND CO.; WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL

CALIFORNIA, INC.; FAIR ISAAC

CORPORATION; TRANS UNION LLC;

EQUIFAX INC.; EXPERIAN SERVICES

CORP.

Defendants.

No. C-06-00330 RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re Docket Nos. 141, 144, 145, 146, 147]

Defendant Trans Union LLC ("Trans Union") has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'

remaining claims with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), with a hearing noticed for Friday,

January 5, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Defendants Lowe's HIW, Inc.; Macy's Department Stores, Inc.;

Experian Services Corp.; Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Discover Financial

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 159 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 5
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 For purposes of this order "defendants" shall refer to Trans Union and the defendants

joining in this motion. Plaintiffs' claims against defendant Fair Isaac Corporation were dismissed

with prejudice in this court's October 30, 2006 Order. 

2 This court previously denied a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) motion filed by defendants after

plaintiffs failed to file a timely amended complaint following the dismissal of plaintiffs' original

complaint. See June 8, 2006 Order Denying Motion for Involuntary Dismissal. In that order the

court advised plaintiff: "in future to refer to and follow the applicable Local Rules if they are unable

to meet filing deadlines."

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 2

Services, Inc.; and Equifax Inc. join in Trans Union's motion.1 Plaintiffs did not file written

opposition. The court held the hearing on the motion on January 5, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs did

not appear for the hearing. The court has read the papers submitted by the parties and considered the

arguments of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Trans Union's motion to

dismiss. Plaintiffs' action is dismissed with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

This court has twice granted motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a

claim. The underlying allegations of plaintiffs' complaint have been discussed in this court's

previous orders and will not be repeated here. On October 30, 2006 the court granted defendants'

motions to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with twenty days' leave to amend plaintiffs'

remaining claims. See Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

("October 30, 2006 Order"). Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint within the provided time

(by November 19, 2006), and have not to date filed an amended complaint. On January 3, 2007

plaintiffs filed an ex parte request for additional time to file an amended complaint which this court

denied.

II. ANALYSIS

Trans Union argues that dismissal of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice is warranted pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because plaintiffs have, inter alia, failed to file an amended complaint

within the court set deadline, previously missed other court deadlines, and previously failed to

comply with court orders.2

 In addition, defendants assert that plaintiffs have been non-responsive to

defendants' attempts to contact them, including Trans Union's November 27, 2006 attempt to contact

plaintiffs regarding Trans Union's present motion. See Decl. of Deborah E. Barack Supp. Mot.

Dismiss ¶¶ 2, 5, 6, 8. 

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 159 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides in relevant part "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to

comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of

any claim against the defendant." In the Ninth Circuit, involuntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b) may be proper where a plaintiff, given the opportunity to amend or be dismissed, does

nothing. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004). In Edwards, the Ninth

Circuit noted that where a plaintiff is given "the opportunity to amend or be dismissed [and does]

nothing[,] . . . resources continue to be consumed by a case sitting idly on the court's docket." Id.

The district court must consider five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case under Rule

41(b): "(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." Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit "may affirm a dismissal where at least four

factors support dismissal, or where at least three factors 'strongly' support dismissal." Id. 

At this juncture in the litigation, plaintiffs have been given opportunities to amend their

complaint to state a claim against defendants. On October 30, 2006, plaintiffs were given twenty

days' leave to amend but, as of the date of this order—more than sixty days later—no amended

complaint has yet been filed. As in both Yourish and Edwards, the public's interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation and the court's need to manage its docket support dismissal where, as here,

following a finding of failure to state a claim plaintiffs are given an opportunity to amend but fail to

amend within the allotted time. In Yourish, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's finding

that "[p]laintiffs' noncompliance has caused the action to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing

[p]laintiffs to control the pace of the docket rather than the [c]ourt" and held "the public's interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal." Id. 

Moreover, despite the court's previous admonishments that plaintiffs adhere to Civil Local

Rules or to otherwise notify the court or opposing counsel if plaintiffs are unable to meet court

deadlines, plaintiffs have continued to fail to do so. Defendants note that plaintiffs have continued

to be non-responsive. The court finds that plaintiffs' continued delay in filing an amended complaint

and continued non-responsiveness are prejudicial to defendants.

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 159 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 4

Finally, although public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, here, this policy

does not weigh significantly in favor of plaintiffs. Several of plaintiffs' claims have been previously

dismissed with prejudice by the court after the court found the claims without merit or plaintiffs

agreed that they did not intend to pursue the claims. Plaintiffs have consistently failed to file timely

papers despite warnings by the court to follow the Local Rules. Although dismissal with prejudice

is a harsh sanction, anything less in this case would essentially be an acknowledgment that court

rules and orders need not be followed. This would be unfair to defendants who have followed the

rules, defeat the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and risk prejudice to

defendants. 

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Trans Union's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs'

action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: 1/9/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 159 Filed 01/17/07 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Stanley Hilton FROG727@AOL.COM 

Counsel for Defendants:

Deborah Barack dbarack@stroock.com

Albert Finch tfinch@eakdl.com

Martin L. Fineman edithshertz@dwt.com

Brian C. Frontino bfrontino@stroock.com

Deanna L. Johnston dljohnston@jonesday.com

James R. McGuire jmcguire@mofo.com

Stacy Marie Monahan smonahan@jonesday.com

Andrew W. Moritz Amoritz@Stroock.com

Stephen Michael Rummage steverummage@dwt.com

William L. Stern wstern@mofo.com

Darya V. Swingle daryaswingle@dwt.com

Michele Kathleen Trausch mtrausch@hansonbridgett.com 

Julia H. Veit jveit@hansonbridgett.com 

Chris Jacob Young cyoung@mofo.com

Felicia Yu fyu@reedsmith.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/17/07 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 159 Filed 01/17/07 Page 5 of 5