Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05561/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05561-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

Case No. V-07-5561 JF

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(JFEX2)

**E-Filed: 04/09/08**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FELIX TORRES, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,

 Defendant.

Case Number CV-07-5561 JF

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

I. BACKGROUND

On February 29, 2008, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing and by April

1, 2008, why the instant action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Because

Plaintiff has responded adequately to the order to show cause, the action will not be dismissed.

II. DISCUSSION

A district court has the authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). This authority is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the

disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion of the district courts. Link v. Wabash

Case 5:07-cv-05561-JF Document 26 Filed 04/09/08 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

2

Case No. V-07-5561 JF

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(JFEX2)

Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-630 (1962). 

The discretion to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute should be exercised in light of

five factors. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994). These 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. Id.

In the instant case, all of the factors weigh against dismissal. Plaintiff has explained that

as of February 25, 2008, the US Marshal’s Office had not served the summons and complaint on

Defendant. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff’s failure to appear could not have resulted in

any prejudice to Defendant. The public policy favoring disposition of a case on its merits weighs

in favor of Plaintiff, and dismissal is a harsh penalty to be imposed only in extreme

circumstances. Industrial Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 437 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th

Cir. 1970). 

IV. ORDER

The order to show cause is hereby discharged. Plaintiff shall appear at a case

management conference on June 13, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.

DATED: April 9, 2008

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05561-JF Document 26 Filed 04/09/08 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

3

Case No. V-07-5561 JF

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(JFEX2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Ashwin Virji Ladva

aladva@yahoo.com

Counsel for Defendant:

Mark F. Bernal

mark.bernal@ccso.sccgov.org

Case 5:07-cv-05561-JF Document 26 Filed 04/09/08 Page 3 of 3