Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05249/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05249-2/pdf.json

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

---

NO. C 09-05249 RS

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

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 

*E-Filed 02/04/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

GLORIA RUBIO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., as a 

nominee for lender; and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-05249 RS 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

Plaintiff Gloria Rubio (“Rubio”) initiated this case by filing a complaint against defendants 

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 

Inc. (“MERS”) in Monterey Superior Court in October 2009. The complaint alleges violations of 

the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, along with other state and federal claims, in relation to 

Rubio’s residential mortgage loan transaction. Countrywide and MERS removed the case to this 

Court in November 2009 and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When Rubio failed to oppose the motion to dismiss, the Court vacated the 

motion hearing date and issued an order to show cause (“OSC”). The OSC instructed Rubio to 

Case 5:09-cv-05249-RS Document 17 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 09-05249 RS

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

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

For the Northern District of California 

respond by January 20, 2010, which she again failed to do. Finally, a show cause hearing was 

conducted on February 3, 2010, at which she did not appear. 

Dismissal is now appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b) (providing that a case may be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute). In 

determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders, 

a district court should consider five factors: (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 the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic sanctions. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994)). 

These factors favor dismissal in the present case. Ms. Rubio has responded to neither the 

defendants’ motion to dismiss nor the Court’s order to show cause, and furthermore she has 

neglected her obligation to appear at the show cause hearing. This inaction is contrary to the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of this litigation and hinders the Court’s ability to manage 

its docket. Also, prejudice to the defendants may be presumed from the unreasonable delays in her 

responses. Under these circumstances, the public policy favoring resolution of disputes on their 

merits does not outweigh Ms. Rubio’s failure to prosecute this action. Nor do sanctions less drastic 

than dismissal appear likely to produce any result. The instant case must, therefore, be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/04/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:09-cv-05249-RS Document 17 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2