Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_10-cv-00679/USCOURTS-cand-1_10-cv-00679-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

NO. C 10-0679 RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 05/07/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

KAROL DAVENPORT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-0679 RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 A hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss was scheduled before the Honorable Richard 

Seeborg on May 06, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. Although Davenport filed papers in opposition, she and her 

counsel failed to appear at the motion hearing. 

This failure suggests a lack of interest in prosecuting this case. Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. In determining whether a 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case, the court must weigh the following 

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 

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Case 1:10-cv-00679-NJV Document 24 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 10-0679 RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 

Generally speaking, however, the district court must first warn the plaintiff that the case is in 

danger of being dismissed for failure to prosecute and give the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. 

See, e.g., Palma v. Dent, No. C 06-6151 PJH, 2007 WL 2023517, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2007). 

Accordingly, Davenport is hereby ordered to show cause in writing why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Her show cause response should be filed in this 

Court no later than June 10, 2010. Should defendants wish to file a response, they should do so no 

later than June 24, 2010. The parties are directed to appear for a show cause hearing on July 9, 

2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the show cause hearing, both parties should also be prepared 

to discuss the substantive issues raised in defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 05/07/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00679-NJV Document 24 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 2