Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00517/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00517-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORRI HARMON, No. CIV S-07-0517-RRB-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COLLECT AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

An initial scheduling conference was held in this matter on August 23, 2007, at

10:00 a.m. in Redding, California. Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq., appeared telephonically for defendant. 

There was no appearance by plaintiff, who also failed to file a scheduling conference statement

as required by the court’s March 19, 2007, initial case order. In light of plaintiff’s failure to

appear and file a scheduling conference statement, the court set the matter for an order to show

cause hearing on September 25, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned in Redding,

California. Plaintiff was directed to appear in person and show cause why this action should not

be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court’s rules and orders. 

Plaintiff failed to appear on September 25, 2007, as ordered and has not otherwise prosecuted

this action. 

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

Case 2:07-cv-00517-RRB -CMK Document 25 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 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

2

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3)

the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 

See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s complete failure to

prosecute this action, the court finds that dismissal is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and

orders. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 27, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00517-RRB -CMK Document 25 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2