Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00664/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00664-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

3:19-cv-00664-BAS-AHG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTURO PINTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CBE GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00664-BAS-AHG

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

This matter comes before the Court following Plaintiff’s failure to appear for the 

Telephonic Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) and Case Management 

Conference (“CMC”) held on November 18, 2019. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff previously failed 

to appear for the in-person ENE and CMC held on October 15, 2019. ECF No. 16.

As set forth in the Court’s previous Order continuing the ENE and CMC, Plaintiff 

has consistently demonstrated that he has no interest in prosecuting this case. Indeed, 

Plaintiff’s attorney withdrew from his representation on September 17, 2019 because 

Plaintiff’s “fail[ure] to participate in the prosecution of this case” prevented his counsel 

from fulfilling her duties. See ECF No. 11 at 3. Since Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew, both 

the Court and counsel for Defendant have attempted to reach Plaintiff numerous times to 

no avail. After Plaintiff failed to appear for the first ENE and CMC, the Court continued 

the ENE and CMC but set them telephonically to avoid unfairness to Defendant given the 

Case 3:19-cv-00664-BAS-AHG Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-00664-BAS-AHG

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

cost of in-person attendance by Defendant’s counsel and representative, who do not live or 

work locally. The Court also warned Plaintiff that, should he fail to appear once more, the 

Court would immediately recommend that the District Judge sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s 

case for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See ECF No. 17. In the interim, 

the Court managed to leave a voicemail for Plaintiff with detailed instructions on how to 

attend the ENE and CMC telephonically in case he had not reviewed the Orders that have 

been mailed to him at his address of record. On the other occasions when the Court 

attempted contact, Plaintiff’s mailbox was full and unable to receive messages. 

In consideration of the procedural history just outlined, and in accordance with its 

prior warning to Plaintiff, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Court 

DISMISS Plaintiff’s case WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. See Link v. 

Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file written objections with the 

Court and serve a copy on Defendant no later than December 6, 2019. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Defendant may file a 

Reply to the Objections by December 13, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00664-BAS-AHG Document 19 Filed 11/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2