Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01789/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01789-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. JENSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et

al., 

Defendants.

1:09-cv-01789-OWW-DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 29)

I. INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiff David E. Jensen (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding with an

action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”).

12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Plaintiffs first amended complaint

alleged claims for: (1) declaratory relief; (2) fraud; (3)

violation of RESPA; (4) reformation; (5) “to quiet title and set

aside foreclosure”; (5) violation of California’s Unfair

Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200; (6) violation

of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(“RFDCPA”); (6) violation of California Civil Code § 1572; (7) and

“injunctive relief.” 

On April 20, 2010, the court granted Defendant’s motion to

dismiss each of Plaintiff’s claims, but provided Plaintiff an

Case 1:09-cv-01789-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 07/19/10 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

2

opportunity to remedy many of the complaint’s deficiencies by

filing an amended complaint. (Doc. 26). Plaintiff was ordered to

submit an amended complaint within thirty days of electronic

service of the court’s order. (Doc 26). Plaintiff failed to file

an amended complaint. Defendants filed a second motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s action on May 3, 2010. (Doc. 29). Plaintiff

failed to file opposition to Defendant’s motion.

II. DISCUSSION.

Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a

party to comply with 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." 

E.D. Cal. R. 110 (2010). District courts have the inherent power

to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they

may impose 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 prosecute an action, 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). In determining whether to dismiss an

action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or

failure to comply with local rules, the 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 the defendants; (4) the

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

Case 1:09-cv-01789-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 07/19/10 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

3

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782

F.2d at 831. After weighing the relevant factors, the court

concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s action with prejudice is

warranted in light of Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s

orders and failure to prosecute this action. 

ORDER

For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED, with prejudice; and

2) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for

Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

hkh80h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01789-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 07/19/10 Page 3 of 3