Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00521/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00521-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Underdog Trucking, LLC and Reggie

Anders, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Arizona Federal Credit Union; Western

International,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0521-PHX-LOA

ORDER AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case arises on the Court’s review of defense counsels’ Status Report, doc.

39, and the docket as a whole. Defendants’ Status Report informs the Court that their

counsels’ attempts to communicate with Plaintiffs’ attorney contact identified in former

counsel’s motion to withdraw were unsuccessful and that neither Plaintiff Reggie Anders nor

a new attorney purportedly representing Plaintiffs participated in the Rule 26(f) case

management conference. (Id.)

On March 8, 2010, Reggie Anders, a non-lawyer, intending to represent

himself and Plaintiff Underdog Trucking, L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability company, filed

a Complaint, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692,

et seq. (“FDCPA”); the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801, et seq., and asserting

several state law claims. (Doc. 1) In a March 11, 2010 order, the Court informed Anders that

the District Court of Arizona follows Arizona law regarding the practice of law and Arizona

does not permit non-lawyers to practice law on behalf of other individuals, corporations, or

Case 2:10-cv-00521-LOA Document 42 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

limited liability companies, citing federal and Arizona law. (Doc. 4 at 3) Plaintiff Underdog

Trucking, L.L.C. was allowed a reasonable opportunity to retain a lawyer, appropriately

licensed to practice law in Arizona and admitted to practice in this District Court, to file an

Amended Complaint and represent Plaintiff Underdog Trucking, L.L.C. in this case or the

Complaint may be dismissed. (Id. at 4)

On April 9, 2010, attorney Emilie Bell entered notices of appearance for both

Plaintiffs and filed a First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 12-14) Defendant Western International Recovery Bureau moved to dismiss, inter alia, Count One because Western is

allegedly not a “debt collector” for purposes of the FDCPA. (Doc. 8) On May 27, 2010, the

Court denied Western’s Motion. (Doc. 36) 

On May 25, 2010, the Court granted attorney Bell’s withdrawal motions and

entered orders withdrawing attorney Emilie Bell and the law firm of Bell Law PLC as

counsel of record for Plaintiffs Underdog Trucking, LLC and Reggie Anders. (Doc. 35)

Plaintiffs Underdog Trucking, LLC and Reggie Anders were ordered to promptly retain new

counsel so that no unreasonable delay occurs in this litigation. (Id.) (emphasis added). On

June 21, 2010, the Court set the Rule 16 scheduling conference for August 3, 2010,

intentionally allowing sufficient time for Plaintiffs to retain new counsel to become familiar

with this case. (Doc. 37) The June 21, 2010 order made clear that “[i]f Plaintiffs’ new

counsel does not participate in the Rule 26(f) case management conference, Plaintiff

Underdog Trucking, LLC may be dismissed from this litigation upon notice to the Court by

Defendants. As Reggie Anders was previously informed, he may represent himself but not

Plaintiff Underdog Trucking, LLC., and he must cooperate with defense counsel in preparing

a joint Case Management Report.” (Id. at 2) To date, there have been no appearances by new

counsel on behalf of either Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs Underdog Trucking, L.L.C. and Anders have been warned several

times and as early as March 11, 2010, doc. 4, that if it did not retain a lawyer, appropriately

licensed to practice law in Arizona and admitted to practice in this District Court, Underdog

Trucking may be dismissed from this litigation.

Case 2:10-cv-00521-LOA Document 42 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

In view of the foregoing, the Court will consider whether dismissal of

Underdog Trucking is appropriate.

When considering whether to dismiss an action or a party for failure to

prosecute or failure to comply with court orders, the district court must consider: “(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.” Malone v. United

States Postal Service, 833 F.3d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779

F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The first two dismissal factors support dismissal of Underdog Trucking from

this lawsuit. Plaintiff Underdog Trucking’s failure to take any action to retain counsel or

participate in the Rule 26(f) case management conference since May 25, 2010 when it was

ordered to promptly retain new counsel so that no unreasonable delay would occur in this

litigation has impeded the speedy resolution of this case. Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Rule 1,

Fed.R.Civ.P. While the Court has given Underdog Trucking more than sufficient time to hire

counsel to participate in the Rule 26(f) case management conference, it has apparently done

nothing, resulting in the continuance of the Rule 16 scheduling conference. Both Plaintiffs’

failure to comply with prior court orders has brought this matter to a halt. Plaintiff Underdog

Trucking’s disregard of prior Court orders also weighs in favor of dismissal. Ash v. Cvetkov,

739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). Third, Underdog Trucking bears the burden of persuasion

as to the reasonableness of its delay and lack of prejudice to Defendant. Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1232 (9th Cir. 1984). “In determining whether a defendant has been

prejudiced, [the court] examine[s] whether the plaintiff’s actions impair the defendant’s

ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case. Malone, 833

F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp. (In re Rubin), 769 F.2d 611, 618 (9th

Cir. 1985)). Under Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., a plaintiff is required to prosecute his case with

reasonable diligence. Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967 (9th Cir.

1978). Plaintiffs have not taken any action in this matter since, at least, May 24, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00521-LOA Document 42 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Plaintiffs’ inaction has effectively stopped this litigation indefinitely. Despite being ordered

to do so, Plaintiff Underdog Trucking has not explained its disregard of the Court’s orders.

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff Underdog Trucking has not satisfied

its burden of persuasion on the issue of prejudice. Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1232 (finding that

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing action based on plaintiff’s failure to

serve process where plaintiff had failed to satisfy his burden of establishing lack of prejudice

to defendants.) Fourth, the July 21, 2010 Order to Show Cause warned Plaintiffs that the

Court may dismiss the matter if Plaintiff Underdog Trucking did not show cause for its

failure to comply with court orders. This warning satisfies the Court’s obligation to consider

less drastic alternatives to dismissal. Malone, 833 F.2d at 132 (citations omitted). Finally,

the public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits weighs against dismissal. This

factor alone, however, does not outweigh the other factors which support dismissal. Id. at 133

n.2. 

After review of the foregoing factors, the Court finds that Underdog Trucking

should be dismissed based on Underdog Trucking’s failure to prosecute its claims and failure

to comply with Court orders. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating

that district courts have the authority to “control their dockets and . . . they may impose

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” ) (internal quotation

omitted); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that district court did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failure to advise the

court of his current mailing address.) 

Accordingly, 

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Underdog Trucking, L.L.C. is DISMISSED

from this litigation without prejudice for failure to prosecute its case and to comply with

court orders.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Rule 16 scheduling conference set for

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED. It will be reset if Plaintiff Anders’

Case 2:10-cv-00521-LOA Document 42 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

lawsuit remains viable.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Reggie Anders shall show cause

in writing on or before Thursday, August 12, 2010 why the Court should not dismiss this

lawsuit without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders.

 Dated this 2nd day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00521-LOA Document 42 Filed 08/02/10 Page 5 of 5