Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01947/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01947-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anita Calugay,

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

GMAC Mortgage; GMAC; and Green

Tree Services,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-01947-PHX-LOA

ORDER

Plaintiff has failed to respond in writing to the Court’s Order to Show

Cause issued on January 20, 2010. (docket # 14) The Plaintiff has consented to

magistrate-judge jurisdiction on October 5, 2009. (docket # 6) There has been no activity

by Plaintiff in this case since

Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint on September 18, 2009. (docket # ) The

Court issued its Order to Show Cause on January 21, 2010 as a result of Plaintiff’s

apparent failure to complete service of process on all Defendants by January 18, 2010 per

the Court’s November 3, 2009 order. (docket ## 12, 14) The Court has since granted

Defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. (docket #13) Further, since the issuance of the Court’s

January 21, 2010 Order to Show Cause, the Plaintiff’s response deadline of February 2,

2010 has expired without any response. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the

Court’s orders by either serving the other Defendants, GMAC Mortgage and GMAC, or

Case 2:09-cv-01947-LOA Document 15 Filed 03/03/10 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

1

 Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits a district court to sua sponte dismiss an action

for failure to comply with its orders. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962);

Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Ass’n, 434 F.2d 281, 283-84 (9th Cir. 1970);Gonzales v.

UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 2008 WL 2610552 (N.D.Cal. 2008).

- 2 -

showing good cause why this lawsuit should not be dismissed in its entirety. See, LRCiv

41.1 (docket ## 12 and 14) It is quite apparent that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

In the January 21, 2010 Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff was advised that

pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir. 1992), the Court has the inherent power to control its docket and in the exercise of

that power, it may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal without

prejudice for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders.

“It is well established that the district court has the authority to dismiss or to

enter default judgment, depending on which party is at fault, for failure . . . to comply

with its orders.” Flaksa v. Little River Marine Constr. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 887, 887 (5th

Cir. 1968) (citing cases); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991) (court

may “fashion appropriate sanction for conduct” including “outright dismissal”). “While

the authority is reiterated in some of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for particular

situations,1

 the power is one inherent in the courts ‘in the interest of the orderly

administration of justice.’ It may be exercised sua sponte under proper circumstances.

The exercise of the authority is discretionary, and is subject to review for abuse of

discretion.” Flaksa, 389 F.2d at 887. 

“Dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with the rules [is] within

the court’s discretion.” Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3rd 837, 841

(9th Cir. 2000) (citing Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187,

188 (2nd Cir. 1943)). Because a district court has the inherent power to control its docket,

it may exercise that power by imposing sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal

of a case. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Case 2:09-cv-01947-LOA Document 15 Filed 03/03/10 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 -

v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (public interest “in

expeditious resolution of litigation,” district court’s need to manage its docket, risk of

prejudice to party seeking sanctions, public policy favoring disposition on the merits,

availability of lesser sanctions, bad faith of violating party, relationship between conduct

and merits); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984)

(personal responsibility of party, prejudice to other party, history of dilatory conduct,

willfulness or bad faith, other sanctions, merits of claim or defense). 

 In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court

order, district courts weigh five factors: (1) the public interest; (2) the court’s need to

manage the docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy

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

alternatives. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. Additionally, Plaintiff’s failure in this case to

comply with court orders is frustrating the court’s responsibilities mandated by Rule 1,

FED.R.CIV.P., (“These rules . . . shall be construed and administered to secure the just,

speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”) (emphasis added), and by the

Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §471 et seq., such as, “setting early, firm trial

dates, such that the trial is scheduled to occur to occur within eighteen months after the filing of

the complaint. . . .” 28 U.S.C. §473(a)(2) (emphasis added). A pro se plaintiff’s status does

not discharge her obligation to “abide by the rules of the court in which [s]he litigates.”

Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

 After considering and weighing all five Ferdik factors to determine if

dismissal is appropriate due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and to

serve process within 120 days of filing the Complaint per Rule 4(m), FED.R.CIV.P., the

Court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice is appropriate

and just under the circumstances of this case. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-01947-LOA Document 15 Filed 03/03/10 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 -

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed without

prejudice. The Clerk is kindly directed to terminate this case.

Dated this 3rd day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01947-LOA Document 15 Filed 03/03/10 Page 4 of 4