Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00919/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00919-3/pdf.json

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

---

1 

NO. C 09‐00919RS 

 ORDER

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 01/19/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

JONA CANIDO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN 

ASSOCIATION, F.A.; and CENTRAL 

MORTGAGE COMPANY, d/b/a CENTRAL 

MORTGAGE LOAN FINANCIAL, d/b/a 

TRUSTEE CORPS, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-00919 RS 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

 In March 2009, plaintiffs Jona and Wilfredo S. Canido, acting pro se, filed a complaint 

against defendants Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A.; Central Mortgage Company, d/b/a 

Central Mortgage Loan Servicing Company; and MTC Financial, d/b/a Trustee Corps. Plaintiffs 

obtained summonses for the three defendants but failed to serve them. Eventually, the summonses 

expired, and the Court scheduled a show cause hearing on August 12, 2009. Jona Canido appeared 

at the hearing and, on the same day, filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) as of right, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). The FAC dropped plaintiff Wilfredo Canido and 

Case 5:09-cv-00919-RS Document 12 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

NO. C 09‐00919RS 

 ORDER

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 

defendant MTC Financial from the lawsuit.1 The Court allowed the lawsuit to continue but directed 

Ms. Canido to return the expired summonses to the Court within 30 days, so that new ones could be 

issued. Order of August 14, 2009, at 2. As of November 16, 2009, Ms. Canido had not returned the 

expired summons, nor had she taken any other action in furtherance of the lawsuit. The Court 

accordingly scheduled a second show cause hearing for January 13, 2010, at which Ms. Canido 

failed to appear. 

As this case was opened in March 2009, and almost nothing has happened to move it 

forward, dismissal is 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. Canido’s inaction is contrary to the 

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

its docket. Prejudice to the defendants may be presumed from the unreasonable delay in service. 

Ms. Canido has been afforded ample opportunity to proceed, and the Court at the initial show cause 

hearing explained to her the process for obtaining summons. Nonetheless, this case has not moved 

forward beyond the filing of an amended (and still unserved) complaint. Under these circumstances, 

the public policy favoring resolution of disputes on their merits does not outweigh Ms. Canido’s 

failure to prosecute this action. Nor do less drastic sanctions appear likely to produce any result. 

The instant case must, therefore, be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

 

1

 The FAC’s caption lists only Jona Canido as a plaintiff. Nonetheless, Wilfredo Canido is listed at 

the top of the complaint, along with Jona, in the space for the parties’ addresses. Therefore it is 

unclear whether the FAC intends that Wilfredo Canido be included as a part of the lawsuit. In an 

abundance of caution, the Court will presume that the FAC intended to drop Wilfredo—thus, in 

effect, allowing him to take a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. This order of dismissal with

prejudice will apply only to Jona Canido’s claims. 

Case 5:09-cv-00919-RS Document 12 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

NO. C 09‐00919RS 

 ORDER

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 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 01/19/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 5:09-cv-00919-RS Document 12 Filed 01/19/10 Page 3 of 3