Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04717/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04717-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CISCO VILLALTA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORP.,

Defendant.

/

No. C 12-4717 MMC

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION;

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

PREJUDICE

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James’s Report and

Recommendation, filed December 3, 2012, by which said Magistrate Judge recommends

the above-titled action be dismissed. As plaintiff Cisco Villalta was served by mail with the

Report and Recommendation on December 3, 2012, any objections thereto were required

to be filed no later than December 20, 2012. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.

6(a), (d). To date, no objection has been filed. 

Having read and considered the Report and Recommendation and having

considered the procedural history of the above-titled action, the Court hereby ADOPTS the

Recommendation.

In so ruling, the Court has weighed the five factors identified by the Ninth Circuit as

particularly relevant to the question of dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with

Case 3:12-cv-04717-MMC Document 18 Filed 01/02/13 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

1

 The five factors are “(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.” See Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); Ferdik

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (same). 

2

 The record before this Court does not reflect whether plaintiff filed any documents

in the case between the filing of the complaint and removal.

2

court orders.1

 In that regard, the Court finds the only factor weighing against dismissal is

the fourth factor. The first three factors, given plaintiff’s complete lack of responsiveness to

court orders and the absence of any filing by plaintiff following removal of the action in early

September 2012,2

 weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. The fifth factor likewise weighs in

favor of dismissal, for the reason that monetary sanctions do not appear appropriate given

the nature of the case (see Compl. ¶¶ 9-11 (alleging claims based on insufficient funds in

checking account)) as well as plaintiff’s history of nonresponsiveness to Court directives. 

Lastly, other possible forms of sanctions have proved ineffective (see Amended Order to

Show Cause, filed November 14, 2012 (warning plaintiff his failure to respond thereto could

result in dismissal)); In re Phenylpropanolamine Products Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1229

(9th Cir. 2006) (noting “[w]arning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal

can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement”); cf. Ready Transp., Inc. v.

AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (acknowledging district court may strike

exhibits from docket as sanction). 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for failure

to prosecute and to comply with court orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-04717-MMC Document 18 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2