Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02015/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02015-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Summit Management Company, LLL; Caliber Home Loans, Inc.; and Vericrest Opportunity 

Loan Trust 2011-NPL1 (collectively, “Defendants”) sought dismissal of the complaint filed by 

Plaintiffs Manuel Lazo and Oralia Lazo pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (Doc. 14.) On July 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiffs’ claims failed either as a 

matter of pleading or a matter of law, and recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in 

part. (Doc. 25.) The Court adopted these recommendations on July 24, 2014, and ordered Plaintiffs to 

“file a First Amended Complaint within twenty-one days of service of th[e] Order,” or no later than 

August 14, 2014. (Doc. 26 at 2.) To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a First Amended Complaint. 

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 

MANUEL LAZO and ORALIA LAZO,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

SUMMIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, 

LLC; CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; and 

VERICREST OPPORTUNITY LOAN 

TRUST 2011-NPLI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02015 - AWI - JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER 

Case 1:13-cv-02015-AWI-JLT Document 27 Filed 08/20/14 Page 1 of 2
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

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for their failure to prosecute and failure comply 

with the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file a First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs are advised that their failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that the matter be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02015-AWI-JLT Document 27 Filed 08/20/14 Page 2 of 2