Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00159/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00159-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 - 11cv0159

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OUCH CHOURP,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv0159 - IEG (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 17]

vs.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

formally doing business as NEW CENTURY

MORTGAGE CORPORATION; WESTERN

PROGRESSIVE, LLC; and DOES 1 through

50 inclusive,

Defendants.

This is a mortgage case. Plaintiff Ouch Chourp, acting pro se, filed suit in San Diego

Superior Court in late 2010, and Defendants removed the action to this Court. On April 22, 2011,

the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. [Doc. No.

5.] In doing so, the Court stated that if Plaintiff wished to file an amended complaint, “she should

do so within 21 days of the filing of this order.” [Id.]

More than 21 days later, on May 25, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. No. 6.] Rather than filing an

amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion. [Doc. No. 7.] 

On July 1, 2011, the Court construed Plaintiff’s opposition as a motion for leave to file an

amended complaint, and granted Plaintiff an additional 21 days to file her amended complaint. 

Case 3:11-cv-00159-IEG-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/06/11 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 - 11cv0159

[Doc. No. 14.]

Presently before the Court is another motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for for failure to timely amend the complaint and prosecute

the action. [Doc. No. 17.] Defendants also filed a request for judicial notice that Plaintiff has filed

another complaint in San Diego Superior Court against them on May 6, 2011. [Doc. No. 18.] To

date, Plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint or a response in opposition to Defendants’

motion to dismiss. 

DISCUSSION

“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant

may move to dismiss the action . . . .” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The Court weighs five factors to

decide whether to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b): “(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.” In re George, 322 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing

Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996)). The Court may grant dismissal “where

at least four factors support dismissal, or where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” 

Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal alterations and quotation

marks omitted). The Court need not make explicit findings to show that it has considered each of

those factors. See id. 

The circumstances in this case warrant dismissal of Plaintiff’s action. As to the first and

second factors, “[T]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors

dismissal.” Id. Here, the Court has given Plaintiff two opportunities to amend her complaint, but

Plaintiff has failed to do so. Therefore, “resources continue to be consumed by a case sitting idly

on the court’s docket.” Edwards v. Martin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Regarding the third factor, prejudice to the defendant, “the failure to prosecute diligently is

sufficient by itself to justify a dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to

the defendant from the failure. . . . The law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.” In re

Risen, 31 F.3d 1447, 152 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524

Case 3:11-cv-00159-IEG-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/06/11 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

1

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the complaint

in Chourp v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 37-2011-00090940-CU-OR-CTL, because it is a matter

of public record. See FED.R.EVID. 201; Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001).

- 3 - 11cv0159

(9th Cir.1976)) (alteration in original). Here, in addition to injury from delay, Defendants have

shown actual prejudice because this action prevents them from being able to market the property at

issue. [Def.’s Mot. at 2, 5.] 

In addition, the fifth factor favors dismissal as well. The Court has attempted to use less

drastic sanctions by previously denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granting Plaintiff an

additional 21 days to file her amended complaint. [Doc. No. 14.] However, Plaintiff has still

failed to amend her complaint, and Plaintiff has failed to oppose Defendants’ present motion to

dismiss. Plaintiff appears to have abandon her case before this Court and attempted to proceed in

state court. [Doc. No. 18, RJN Ex. 7].1

Only the fourth factor-public policy favoring adjudication on the merits-weighs against

dismissal. This factor is insufficient by itself to warrant retaining Plaintiff’s action. See Yourish,

191 F.3d at 990. Because four of the five factors support dismissal, the Court dismisses the action.

See id.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk is directed to close the

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2011 _________________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-00159-IEG-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/06/11 Page 3 of 3