Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00711-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Craig Tanner and Gina Tanner contend the defendants are liable for violations of California law 

related to a short sale and non-judicial foreclosure of their residence. (See generally Doc. 10) 

However, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s orders and failed to prosecute this action. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends the action be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

I. Relevant Background

On July 18, 2016, the Court granted the motion filed by Kenley Dygert to withdraw as counsel 

for Plaintiffs. (Doc. 14) The Court ordered Plaintiffs to “file a notification with the Court indicating 

whether they intends to represent themselves going forward or whether they will retain a new attorney” 

no later than June 29, 2016. (Id. at 3) The Court instructed Plaintiff that if they intended to hire an 

attorney, they must notify the Court regarding when that would occur. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Court’s order. As a result, the Court issued an order to show

cause why the action should not be dismissed for the failure to respond to the Court’s order, or in the 

CRAIG TANNER and GINA TANNER,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL 

CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0711 - LJO - JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFFS’

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE 

ACTION

Case 1:16-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 20 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 4
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

alternative, “to file a notification indicating whether they intend to represent themselves.” (Doc. 18 at 

2) To date, Plaintiffs have not responded to either order of the Court, or taken any further action to 

prosecute the matter. 

II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 

party to comply 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.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent 

power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including 

dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986). 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, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment 

of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 

failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 

III. Discussion and Analysis

To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court 

order, the Court must 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 sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 

Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

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

interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 

managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Judges in the Eastern District 

of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court cannot, and will not hold, this 

Case 1:16-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 20 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 4
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

action in abeyance given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute. 

The risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury 

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 

542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Significantly, the Ninth Circuit determined a court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the 

court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the requirement that less drastic sanctions be considered. 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 131; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “a 

plaintiff can hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to willful violation of a [court]

order.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 133. Here, Plaintiffs was warned that “failure to comply with ... any 

order of the Court may result in the action being dismissed.” (Doc. 14 at 3, emphasis in original). 

Again, in the order to show cause Plaintiffs were advised that failure to comply with the Court’s orders 

would result in dismissal of action. (Doc. 18 at 1-2) Thus, Plaintiffs received adequate warning that 

dismissal would result from their noncompliance with the Court’s orders, which satisfies the Court’s 

obligation to consider lesser sanctions. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Given these facts, the policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. 

IV. Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiffs failed to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the Court’s orders dated July 18, 2016

(Doc. 14) and August 3, 2016 (Doc. 18). Consequently, Plaintiffs also failed to continue the 

prosecution of this action. 

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. This action be DISMISSED with prejudice; 

2. Remaining motions be terminated as MOOT; and

3. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close the action.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Case 1:16-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 20 Filed 08/30/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 20 Filed 08/30/16 Page 4 of 4