Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00713/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00713-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEUANG LOTAKOON NIRAVANH, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ADRIANA DURHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-CV-0713-DC-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, bring this civil action. The complaint in this 

matter was filed on April 18, 2024, and an amended summons was issued on April 20, 2024. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Defendants must be served within 90 days of 

the date of filing of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). To date, more than 90 days have 

passed, and the docket does not reflect that any named defendant in this action has been served. 

On November 18, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show within 30 days why this action 

should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. See ECF No. 12. Plaintiffs did 

not respond to the order to show cause. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-00713-DC-DMC Document 13 Filed 01/10/25 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

2

The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 

See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 

833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986). 

Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiffs’ failure to affect service 

nor reply to the Court’s order to show cause, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is 

appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 

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)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 8, 2025

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00713-DC-DMC Document 13 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 2