Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00265/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00265-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory 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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cesar F. Silvas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-265-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court Defendant GMAC Mortgage, LLC’s Motion for Sanctions

and Involuntary Dismissal With Prejudice Pursuant to Rules 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A)(v) and 41(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P. (Dkt. # 74). This motion filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

16(f), 37(b)(2)(A)(v) and 41(b) was filed on March 1, 2010. On March 24, 2010, this Court

entered an Order indicating that Plaintiff had not responded to the motion and pursuant to

LRCiv 7.2(c) “the opposing party shall . . . have fourteen (14) days after service in a civil or

criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum.” It thereafter

ordered the Plaintiff to file a responsive memorandum. The Court informed Plaintiff that he

had failed to comply with Local Rule 7.2(c) and extended the time in which Plaintiff could

respond to the motion filed by Defendant GMAC Mortgage, LLC, to and including April 2,

2010 (Dkt. # 75). Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a response brief “may be deemed

consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motions

summarily,” and this “could result in the dismissal of certain claims and defendants.”

Case 2:09-cv-00265-GMS Document 76 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Despite the warning and extension of time, Plaintiff failed to file a response to the motion.

Local Rule 7.2(i) provides that an unrepresented party’s failure to respond to a motion

“may be deemed consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the

motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995)

(holding that a district court did not err in dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing

to comply with a local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)

(holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s

complaint for failing to comply with a court order). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that

“[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King

v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362,

1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that pro se litigants should not be treated more favorably

than parties represented by attorneys). 

The Ninth Circuit has established

a five-part test to determine whether the dismissal sanction is

just: (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 party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

availability of less drastic sanctions.

Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal

quotations omitted); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. However, “[t]his ‘test’ is not

mechanical. It provides the district court with a way to think about what to do, not a set of

conditions precedent for sanctions or a script that the district court must follow[.]” Conn.

Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007).

“[W]here a court order is violated, factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4 cuts against casedispositive sanctions, so 3 and 5 . . . are decisive.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057. 

Factor 3 – Risk of Prejudice to Defendant

Here, Defendant GMAC Mortgage, LLC will be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s ongoing

refusal to prosecute his claims. Defendant has expended significant amounts of time and

finances to timely address Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s failure to respond, to participate in

Case 2:09-cv-00265-GMS Document 76 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 4
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 -

case management, to exchange disclosure statements, or to otherwise cooperate with the

Orders of the Court will frustrate Defendant’s efforts and cause it to incur additional

expenses.

In its Motion for Sanctions, Defendant seeks dismissal with prejudice, arguing that

dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff has failed to comply with (1) this Court’s Order

setting a Rule 16 Case Management Conference dated December 16, 2009 (Dkt. # 67); (2)

Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring parties to provide initial

disclosures to each other; (3) Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the

parties to meet and confer at least 21 days before a case management conference is to be held

or a scheduling order is due; (4) Rule 16(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

requiring attendance at the Case Management Conference; and (5) this Court’s minute entry

dated February 5, 2010, ordering Plaintiff to submit a memorandum to the Court no later than

February 12, 2010 explaining his non-appearance at the Case Management Conference and

his failure to participate in the drafting of the case management plan (Dkt. # 72). These

arguments are fairly and timely raised in this action and deserve a timely response by

Plaintiff. The Court has been flexible in ensuring that Plaintiff has had an opportunity to

both plead his claims and be heard in response to Defendant’s motion. To continue to permit

Plaintiff to engage in delay and silence would significantly prejudice Defendant actively

seeking to clarify and narrow this action.

Therefore, factor 3 weighs heavily in favor of dismissal.

Factor 5 – Availability of Less Drastic Sanctions

Factor 5 “involves consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly

discussed alternative sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant

party about the possibility of dismissal.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057. The Court has

granted Plaintiff ample time to respond to Defendant’s motion and has explicitly warned him

that failure to do so could result in granting of the motion and “could result in dismissal of

Plaintiff’s claims.” Plaintiff nonetheless failed to respond or take any other action to

prosecute his claims. Therefore, factor 5 weighs in favor of dismissal.

Case 2:09-cv-00265-GMS Document 76 Filed 04/08/10 Page 3 of 4
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 -

This is particularly true when the dismissal entered by the Court is only a dismissal

without prejudice. Because Plaintiff has not yet had his claims dismissed without prejudice,

it is a sanction that the Court can attempt which will be less drastic than a dismissal with

prejudice. Because no other discovery based sanction is appropriate when Plaintiff refuses

to participate in any discovery or follow the Court’s Orders, a dismissal without prejudice

is the next available sanction.

With four factors weighing in favor of dismissal and one factor weighing against,

dismissal is appropriate here. See, e.g., Wystrach v. Ciachurski, 267 F. App’x 606, 607-08

(9th Cir. 2008) (upholding dismissal under Local Rule 7.2(i) where the first three factors all

weighed in favor of dismissal); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (upholding summary dismissal of

a pro se plaintiff’s action for failure to follow the court’s local rules).

Having considered the motion pending before the Court:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and Involuntary

Dismissal (Dkt. # 74) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.

DATED this 8th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00265-GMS Document 76 Filed 04/08/10 Page 4 of 4