Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01456/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01456-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHIRLEY PUTNAM,

Plaintiff, No. C 10-1456 PJH

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PNC GLOBAL INVESTMENT SERVICING, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On June 7, 2010, this court dismissed without prejudice plaintiff’s complaint against

defendant. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint no later than July 7, or the

complaint would be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff failed to do so, but did file a

stipulation re: ADR process on July 1, 2010. On July 15, 2010, this court issued an order to

show cause, instructing plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed with

prejudice, and informing plaintiff that she could discharge the order to show cause by filing

an amended complaint in accordance with the court’s instructions no later than July 21,

2010, or else respond in writing to the OSC. More than one week has now passed since

the July 21 deadline, and plaintiff has again failed to file an amended complaint, or

otherwise respond in writing to the court’s prior order. 

The court has considered the five factors set forth in Malone v. United States Postal

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and has determined that notwithstanding the

public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the court's need to manage

its docket and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of the instant litigation require

dismissal of this action. In view of plaintiff's lack of response to this court's prior orders, the

Case 4:10-cv-01456-PJH Document 27 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

court finds there is no appropriate less drastic sanction. 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

41(b) for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. In light of this holding, defendant’s pending motion

to be relieved as counsel in connection with this litigation is also denied as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01456-PJH Document 27 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 2