Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00653/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00653-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ICEPIECE INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK NA,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00653-MEJ 

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO 

REASSIGN CASE

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2014, Plaintiff Icepiece Inc. filed a complaint for breach of contract in the 

County Court at Law No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas. On September 29, 2014, Defendant Wells 

Fargo Bank NA removed the case to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Case No. 

3:14-cv-03528-BN. Dkt. No. 1. Defendant then filed a Motion To Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1404, arguing that the parties’ contract contained a venue provision requiring that any 

claims arising under the contract shall be brought in the appropriate state or federal court for

Marin County, California. Dkt. No. 6. As Plaintiff did not file any response to the motion by the 

December 30, 2014 deadline, the District Court in Dallas extended Plaintiff’s response deadline to 

January 20, 2015. Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff still did not respond to the motion, and the court granted 

it on February 9, 2015. Dkt. No. 11.

After the case was transferred to this District, the Court scheduled a Case Management 

Conference for May 14, 2015, and ordered the parties to file a Case Management Statement by 

May 7. Dkt. No. 13. Defendant obtained California counsel and filed a Substitution of Counsel 

on April 29, 2015. Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff, however, has not filed any substitution of attorneys. 

On May 6, 2015, Defendant filed a Rule 26(f) Report, in which Defendant states that it has 

Case 3:15-cv-00653-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

attempted on numerous occasions to hold a Rule 26 meet and confer and/or discuss the case with 

Plaintiff’s Texas counsel, but has received no response. Dkt. No. 18. Defendant included

multiple email communications sent by Defendant’s counsel to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting that 

the parties engage in a “meet and confer” process in advance of filing a Rule 26(f) report. Id., Ex. 

1. Defendant stated that it received no response to these emails from Plaintiff, its Texas counsel, 

or any new California counsel purporting to represent Plaintiff. Plaintiff has made no appearance 

in the case since its transfer to this District. 

Based on this procedural background, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by May 

21, 2015, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

court deadlines. Dkt. No. 19. The Court provided notice to Plaintiff that it may dismiss the case if 

it failed to respond by the deadline. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to 

the Court’s Order to Show Cause or otherwise make an appearance in this case. Based on this 

procedural history, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b). 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 41(b), “the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Oliva v. 

Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273-74 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to 

meet court deadline). “[T]he district court must weigh the following factors in determining 

whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted: ‘(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.’” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “These factors are ‘not a series of 

conditions precedent before the judge can do anything,’ but a ‘way for a district judge to think 

about what to do.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig. (“In re PPA”), 460 F.3d 

1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 

(9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or 

Case 3:15-cv-00653-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 

F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998).

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that the Henderson factors support dismissal. First, “the public’s interest 

in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 

F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff delayed adjudication of the claims in this case by having 

failed to appear in this case for over six months, and it has now failed to respond to this Court’s 

show cause order.

Second, the Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of dismissal. Noncompliance with procedural rules and the Court’s orders wastes “valuable time that [the Court] 

could have devoted to other . . . criminal and civil cases on its docket.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261.

As for the third Henderson factor, the mere pendency of a lawsuit cannot constitute 

sufficient prejudice to require dismissal. Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. However, “prejudice . . . may . 

. . consist of costs or burdens of litigation.” In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228. Moreover, “a 

presumption of prejudice arises from a plaintiff’s unexplained failure to prosecute.” Laurino v. 

Syringa Gen. Hosp., 279 F.3d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff has the burden of 

demonstrating a non-frivolous reason for failing to meet a court deadline. Id.; see also Yourish, 

191 F.3d at 991. Here, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and has 

offered no explanation for its failure to appear in this case for over six months. Therefore, the 

Court concludes that the third Henderson factor also supports dismissal.

The fourth Henderson factor, that public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits,

normally weighs strongly against dismissal. See, e.g., Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399. “At the same 

time, a case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a party’s failure to comply with deadlines . . 

. cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits.” In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228. The Ninth 

Circuit has “recognized that this factor ‘lends little support’ to a party whose responsibility it is to 

move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 

direction.” Id. (quoting In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 433 (9th Cir. 1996)). Thus, if the 

fourth Henderson factor weighs against dismissal here, it does so very weakly. 

Case 3:15-cv-00653-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Finally, the Court has already attempted less drastic sanctions, without success, and 

therefore determines that trying them again would be inadequate or inappropriate. “Though there 

are a wide variety of sanctions short of dismissal available, the district court need not exhaust 

them all before finally dismissing a case.” Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 

(9th Cir. 1981). Here, the Court already attempted the lesser sanction of issuing an Order to Show 

Cause and giving Plaintiff an opportunity to explain its failure to appear. As Plaintiff failed to 

respond, another order requiring Plaintiff to respond is likely to be futile. See, e.g., Gleason v. 

World Sav. Bank, FSB, 2013 WL 3927799, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) (finding dismissal 

under Rule 41(b) appropriate where the court previously attempted the lesser sanction of issuing 

an Order to Show Cause and giving the plaintiff an additional opportunity to re-plead). Further, 

the Order to Show Cause warned Plaintiff of the risk of dismissal; thus Plaintiff cannot maintain 

that the Court has failed in its “obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva, 

958 F.2d at 274. Accordingly, the Court finds that the fifth factor also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court finds that at least four of the five Henderson factors 

weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff has failed to appear in this case for over six months, has 

made no appearance since the case was transferred from Texas, and failed to respond to the order 

to show cause. Thus, Plaintiff failed to prosecute this case and dismissal is appropriate. However, 

a less drastic alternative is to dismiss without prejudice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Dismissal 

will minimize prejudice to Defendant, but dismissing the case without prejudice will preserve the 

ability of Plaintiff to seek relief. Thus, “[i]n an abundance—perhaps overabundance—of caution,” 

the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 

706 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir. 2013) (remanding to the district court in order to consider whether 

dismissal should have been without prejudice). 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff did not yet consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, the 

Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a district court judge. The 

undersigned RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned judge DISMISS this case WITHOUT 

Case 3:15-cv-00653-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s deadlines and orders.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to 

this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: May 26, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00653-MMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 5 of 5