Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00893/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00893-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRITTANY SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLECTO, INC. 

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-00893-TLN-CKD

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

This case was removed to this Court on April 10, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) This Court issued 

the Scheduling Order in this case (ECF No. 7) over twelve months ago, on September 8, 2014. 

The parties were ordered to meet and confer and file a pretrial statement. On September 30, 

2015, Defendant filed its pretrial statement, within which it asserted that Plaintiff had been 

unresponsive to correspondence from both Defendant and Plaintiff’s previous attorney who had 

withdrawn because communication has broken down to the point that counsel cannot continue 

representing Plaintiff. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff did not file her pretrial statement or respond to 

Defendant’s statement. 

On October 2, 2015, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this matter 

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff did not respond. In 

light of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, the Court vacated the final pretrial date. (ECF No. 19.) 

On October 22, 2015, the Court issued a second order to show cause in which it sanctioned 

Case 2:14-cv-00893-TLN-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/16/15 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

27

28

2

Plaintiff $150 for failure to adhere to this Court’s orders. (ECF No. 320.) In its order, the Court 

warned Plaintiff that failure to comply would likely result in dismissal of this case. The time for 

compliance has come and gone and, again, Plaintiff failed to comply or respond. 

“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because

of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

629 (1962). The Ninth Circuit has set forth four factors that a district court must consider before 

dismissing a case for failure to prosecute:

[1] the court’s need to manage its docket, [2] the public interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation, [3] the risk of prejudice to 

defendants from delay, [4] the policy favoring disposition of cases 

on their merits.

Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 651 (9th Cir. 1991). For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of dismissing this case.

First, the Court has an inherent need to manage its docket. This matter was brought to this 

Court in April 2014, and Plaintiff has not moved forward with her case. Second, the public’s 

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation also favors dismissing this case because the Court is 

wasting its time and resources attempting to compel Plaintiff’s cooperation in litigating her own 

case. Third, Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the litigation of her case prevents Defendant from 

seeking some sort of resolution. Finally, although the disposition of cases based on their merits in 

preferred, it is unlikely that such is an option here. The Court simply cannot move forward 

without Plaintiff’s assistance.

Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that all four factors support 

dismissing Plaintiff’s case. As such, the Court hereby DISMISSES all pending claims against 

Defendant in this action with prejudice. This case is CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-00893-TLN-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2