Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02107/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02107-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

CLIFF ROGERS, et al., CASE NO. CV F 09-2107 LJO DLB

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO DISMISS REMAINING

DEFENDANT

vs. (Doc. 8.)

CAL STATE MORTGAGE CO.

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

ThisCourt’sJanuary11, 2010 order(“January11 order”) dismissed defendant American General

Financial Services, Inc. and required plaintiffs Cliff Rogers and Glenna Rogers (collectively “Mr. and

Mrs. Rogers”), no later than January 18, 2010, to file papers to show cause why this Court should not

dismiss this action against remaining defendant Cal State Mortgage Co. Inc. The January 11 order

“ADMONISHES Mr. and Mrs. Rogers and their counsel that this Court will dismiss this action

against Cal State Mortgage Co. Inc. if Mr. and Mrs. Rogers’ counsel fails to comply with this

order and fails to file timely papers to show cause why this Court should not dismiss this action

against defendant Cal State Mortgage Co. Inc.” (Bold in original.) Mr. and Mrs. Rogers and/or their

counsel have failed to file papers to show cause why this Court should not dismiss defendant Cal State

1

Case 1:09-cv-02107-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 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

Mortgage Co. Inc. to disobey the January 11 order. 

DISCUSSION

Failure To Comply With Orders

This Court’s Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to complywith these

[Local] Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have inherent power to control

their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, theymayimpose sanctions including, where appropriate

. . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or local rules. See, e.g.,

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule);

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to complywith an order

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal

for failure to complywith local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone

v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution

and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining whetherto dismiss an action for failure to complywith a court order or local rules

or for lack of prosecution, a court must consider several factors: (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 defendant;

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-1261; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In this case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest

in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal as Mr. and Mrs. Rogers and/or their counsel indicate

a lack of interest to further litigate or prosecute this action. The third factor -- risk of prejudice to

defendant -- also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence

of unreasonable delayin prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed

2

Case 1:09-cv-02107-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 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

by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that its failure

to obeythe court’s orderwill result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. 

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The January 11

order “ADMONISHES Mr. and Mrs. Rogers and their counsel that this Court will dismiss this

action against Cal State Mortgage Co. Inc. if Mr. and Mrs. Rogers’ counsel fails to comply with

this order and fails to file timely papers to show cause why this Court should not dismiss this

action against defendant Cal State Mortgage Co. Inc.” (Bold in original.) Mr. and Mrs. Rogers and

their counsel ignored the January 11 order and received adequate warning that dismissal will result from

disobedience of this Court’s orders and failure to prosecute this action. Quite simply, Mr. and Mrs.

Rogers and their counsel have failed to comply with this Court’s order and to meaningfully and

intelligently respond.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DISMISSES without prejudice this action against

defendant Cal State Mortgage Co. Inc. and DIRECTS the clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-02107-LJO-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 3