Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00148/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00148-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1 

NO. C 10‐00148 RS 

 ORDER

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 

*E-Filed 04/29/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

BERNABE GARCIA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a 

California Corporation; and DOES 1 

through 100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-00148 RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

This case, in which plaintiff Bernabe Garcia is proceeding pro se, is before the Court on 

defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”)’s motions to dismiss and to strike. The 

hearing on Countrywide’s motions was originally scheduled for a date in March 2010, but the date 

was vacated by the Court after Countrywide, the removing party, failed to include a copy of 

Garcia’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) in the record. Countrywide has now filed a copy of the 

FAC in the Court’s docket. 

Garcia has not opposed Countrywide’s substantive motions to dismiss and to strike. 

Similarly, when this case was in state court prior to Countrywide’s removal, he made little effort to 

prosecute his case in that venue, declining to oppose Countrywide’s demurrer. Countrywide argues 

Case 5:10-cv-00148-RS Document 23 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

NO. C 10‐00148 RS 

 ORDER

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 

that the action should be dismissed because Garcia failed to comply with the Civil Local Rules. The 

local rules of this court provide that a party opposing a motion shall file an opposition or a statement 

of non-opposition no fewer than 21 days before the noticed hearing date. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a), (b). 

Countrywide, citing Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995), asserts that the dismissal of a 

lawsuit is an appropriate sanction for a plaintiff's failure to comply with local rules regarding the 

filing of an opposition to a motion to dismiss. 

In Ghazali, the local rules of the District of Nevada provided that “[t]he failure of the 

opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall 

constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” Id. at 53 (citing Dist. Nev. R. 140-6). The Ninth 

Circuit noted that while the courts construe pleadings liberally in the favor of pro se plaintiffs, pro 

se litigants are nonetheless bound by the rules of procedure. Because the plaintiff in that case had 

failed to follow the local rules, the court found that the case was properly dismissed. Id. at 54. 

Nevertheless, Ghazali is distinguishable from the present case. Unlike the District of 

Nevada, the Northern District of California does not have a local rule providing that the failure to 

file an opposition constitutes consent to the granting of the motion. Local Rule 7-3(a) simply sets 

forth the schedule for briefing motions in this court, while Rule 7-3(a) provides that a party who 

does not oppose a motion must file a statement of non-opposition. There is no provision in the local 

rules of this Court indicating that the failure to file an opposition will result in the granting of the 

motion. Thus, strictly speaking, Garcia did not violate the local rules by failing to file an 

opposition. 

Nevertheless, Garcia’s failure to oppose Countrywide’s demurrer in state court, coupled with 

his similar failure to oppose the instant motions to dismiss and to strike, indicate a troubling lack of 

interest in prosecuting this case. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court may 

dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. In determining whether a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

warrants dismissal of the case, the court must weigh the following 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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 

Case 5:10-cv-00148-RS Document 23 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 4
3 

NO. C 10‐00148 RS 

 ORDER

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 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986). 

Generally speaking, however, the district court must first warn the plaintiff that the case is in 

danger of being dismissed for failure to prosecute and give the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. 

See, e.g., Palma v. Dent, No. C 06-6151 PJH, 2007 WL 2023517 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2007). 

Accordingly, Garcia is hereby ordered to show cause in writing why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). His show cause response should be filed in this 

Court no later than June 10, 2010. Should Countrywide wish to file a response, it should do so no 

later than June 24, 2010. The parties are directed to appear for a show cause hearing on July 9, 

2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, San Francisco, California. 

The Case Management Conference scheduled for May 6, 2010, is hereby vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/29/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 5:10-cv-00148-RS Document 23 Filed 04/29/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

NO. C 10‐00148 RS 

 ORDER

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 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY 

PROVIDED TO: 

Vanessa Anne Sunshine vanessa.sunshine@bryancave.com 

 delaram.seyedan@bryancave.com 

Christopher Louis Dueringer cldueringer@bryancave.com 

 karina.lopez@bryancave.com 

AND A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: 

Bernabe Garcia 

1108 Woodminister Drive 

San Jose, CA 95121 

Dated: 04/29/2010 /s/ Chambers Staff 

 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg 

Case 5:10-cv-00148-RS Document 23 Filed 04/29/10 Page 4 of 4