Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00778/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00778-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Eric B. Battles, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank; Chase Home 

Finance; First American Title Company, 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-00778-TUC-CKJ (BPV) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Plaintiff filed this action against defendants on December 2, 2011. (Doc. 1) On 

February 2, 2012, the District Court screened Battles’ Amended Complaint and dismissed 

Defendants Chase Home Finance and First American Title Company from this Action, 

and dismissed Battles’ claims for violations of 24 C.F.R. § 3500 and the Gramm-LeachBliley Act. (Doc. 11) 

 The District Court acknowledged that Battles had set forth a claim for a RESPA 

violation against JP Morgan Chase Bank and notified Petitioner that he must complete 

service of the Amended Complaint against the remaining defendant within 120 days of 

the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the February 2, 2012 

screening order. Alternatively, the District Court granted Battles thirty (30) days from the 

date of filing of the February 2, 2012 screening order to file a Second Amended 

Complaint. Battles has filed no Second Amended Complaint. 

 Plaintiff was also notified that if he did not obtain a waiver of service of the 

Case 4:11-cv-00778-CKJ Document 15 Filed 05/25/12 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

summons or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendant within 

120 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the February 2, 

2012 order, whichever is later, the action might be dismissed as to each Defendant not 

served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

More than 120 days from the date the original complaint was filed has passed as 

well as more than 60 days from the date the February 2, 2012 screening order was filed, 

and Plaintiff has not made proof of service. Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides, in 

relevant part: 

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the 

court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the 

action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be 

made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 

failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 

On May 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order to Show Cause ordering 

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to serve Defendant, pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., by filing a writing with 

the Court on or before May 22, 2012. 

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause. 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust 

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff’s failure 

to complete service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendant within 120 days of 

the filing date of the complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the order, or to timely 

respond to the order to show cause constitutes failure to prosecute 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of 

the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant 

may move for dismissal of an action....” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent 

Case 4:11-cv-00778-CKJ Document 15 Filed 05/25/12 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a 

party. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for 

failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633. 

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the 

case, the Court must weigh the following 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 disposition of cases on their 

merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 

1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

“The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the 

fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are 

prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 

(9th Cir. 1990). 

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s 

failure to serve Defendants, or to actively participate in this case prevents the case from 

proceeding in the foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against 

dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic 

alternative is available. 

The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 

41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon 

the merits "[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies." In the instant 

case, the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The 

Complaint and this action should therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

// 

// 

Case 4:11-cv-00778-CKJ Document 15 Filed 05/25/12 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

RECOMMENDATION 

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Magistrate Judge 

recommends that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections 

within 10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If 

objections are not timely filed they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that 

any objections filed are to be identified with the following case number: CV 11-0778-

TUC-CKJ. 

Dated this 25th day of May, 2012. 

Case 4:11-cv-00778-CKJ Document 15 Filed 05/25/12 Page 4 of 4