Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02294/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02294-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 - 10cv2294-WQH-POR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN LEISHER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2294-WQH-POR

ORDER

vs.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, INC., a

business entity of unknown form; NDEX

WEST, LLC, a business entity of

unknown form; WORLD SAVINGS

BANK, FSB; WELLS FARGO BANK,

N.A.; and all persons unknown, claiming

any legal or equitable right, title, estate,

lien, or interest in the property described

in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s

title, or cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto,

and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure

to Comply with Court’s Orders, filed by Defendants Wachovia Mortgage, Inc., World Savings

Bank, FSB and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (ECF No. 11), and the Court’s March 15, 2011 Order

to Show Cause why Defendant NDEX West, LLC should not be dismissed for failure to effect

service (ECF No. 10).

BACKGROUND

On October 8, 2010, Plaintiff Steven Leisher, whose is represented by counsel, initiated

this action by filing a Complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A).

On November 5, 2010, Defendants Wachovia Mortgage, Inc., World Savings Bank,

FSB and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. removed this action to this Court. (ECF No. 1). The Notice

Case 3:10-cv-02294-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 04/26/11 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 - 10cv2294-WQH-POR

of Removal states that Defendant NDEX West, LLC (“NDEX”) is a nominal defendant who

had not yet been served. See id. at 3-4.

On January 12, 2011, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the removing

Defendants. (ECF No. 9). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court

dismissed the Complaint without prejudice as to the moving Defendants and ordered: “No later

than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to amend

the Complaint, accompanied by a proposed first amended complaint.” Id. at 17.

On March 15, 2011, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause which stated:

Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service as to the sole remaining

Defendant, NDEX....

This Order constitutes notice to Plaintiff that the Court will dismiss this

action without prejudice pursuant to [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 4(m) on

April 11, 2011, unless, no later than that date, Plaintiff files: (1) proof that

service was timely effectuated, or (2) a declaration under penalty of perjury

showing good cause for failure to timely serve NDEX, accompanied by a motion

for leave to serve process outside of the 120 day period.

(ECF No. 10 at 2).

On March 24, 2011, the removing Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss.

(ECF No. 11). The removing Defendants move for an order dismissing this action with

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with the

Court’s January 12, 2011 Order granting Plaintiff thirty days to file a motion for leave to

amend the Complaint.

The docket reflects that Plaintiff has not filed a response to the March 15, 2011 Order

to Show Cause or an opposition to the March 24, 2011 Motion to Dismiss.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action with

prejudice when a plaintiff fails to timely amend following an order granting a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion. See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999).

After considering the relevant factors, the Court finds that “the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of

prejudice to the defendants” weigh strongly in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss. Id. at

Case 3:10-cv-02294-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 04/26/11 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

- 3 - 10cv2294-WQH-POR

990. Pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Motion to Dismiss is granted. As to the moving Defendants,

this action is dismissed with prejudice.

As to Defendant NDEX, this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 11).

As to Defendants Wachovia Mortgage, Inc., World Savings Bank, FSB and Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A., this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. As to Defendant NDEX West, LLC ,

this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: April 26, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02294-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 04/26/11 Page 3 of 3