Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06613/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06613-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property - Real Estate

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN )

 MERCED COUNTY, COMMONLY )

 KNOWN AS 10382 EAST GERARD, )

 PLANADA, CALIFORNIA, APN: 053- )

270-019; Including Appurtenances and )

 Improvements Thereto, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-6613 AWI SMS

ORDER DISCHARGING MINUTE

ORDER CONCERNING DISMISSAL

FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 20,

2007 HEARING DATE

On November 17, 2003, the United States of America filed this action for the forfeiture of

property. On January 15, 2004, Gabriel Andrade and Leticia Andrade filed a claims of

ownership. On July 17, 2006, the United States’ attorney was changed. On October 11, 2006,

the United States filed a status report. 

On January 5, 2007, the Clerk of the Court issued a minute order setting a hearing in this

action to determine if it should be dismissed for lack of prosecution. On February 13, 2007, the

United States filed an opposition to the dismissal of this action. 

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution the court must

Case 1:03-cv-06613-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 02/16/07 Page 1 of 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 2

consider several 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. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9 Cir. 1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. th

At this time, the court finds dismissal is not appropriate. The United States presents

evidence that the delay in prosecuting this case is because of waiting for related state court

proceedings to be resolved and the changeover in attorneys representing the United States. More

importantly, the current attorney representing the United States has informed the court that she is

now ready to proceed with this action. The court’s interest in maintaining its docket and the

public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weigh against dismissal because the

United States is currently able and willing to fully litigate this action. Public policy also favors

disposition of cases on their merits. Dismissal is a drastic sanction, and there are other tools

available to the court to ensure that it will be timely litigated. Finally, the risk of prejudice to

any clamant is minimal. Thus, this action will not be dismissed for lack of prosecution at this

time.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The January 5, 2007 minute order concerning dismissal for lack of

prosecution is DISCHARGED;

2. The February 20, 2006 hearing is VACATED and no party or claimant

need appear at that time; and

3. Within thirty days of this order’s date of service, the United States is

ORDERED to contact the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Sandra M.

Snyder to arrange for a scheduling conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06613-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2