Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02844/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02844-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY LACAYO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-09-2844 GEB KJM PS

vs.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST CO., et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

Defendants’ motion to dismiss came on regularly for hearing on January 27, 2010. 

No appearance was made for plaintiffs. Kevin Broersma appeared telephonically for defendants. 

Upon review of the documents in support, no opposition having been filed, and good cause

appearing, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiffs filed this action in state court and the action was removed to this court

on October 13, 2009. On October 21, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, to which 

plaintiffs did not timely respond. By order filed November 19, 2009, plaintiffs were given

additional time in which to file opposition to defendants’ motion and were cautioned that failure

to file opposition would be deemed as a statement of non-opposition. Plaintiffs still have not

filed an opposition and failed to appear at the hearing on the motion held on January 27, 2010. 

Case 2:09-cv-02844-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 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

2

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for dismissal of actions based on

lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure,

even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987). In determining whether to dismiss for lack of prosecution, generally the court

considers (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. See, e.g.,

Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may dismiss a case sua

sponte for lack of prosecution by the plaintiff. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel,

Inc., 898 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1990). Sua sponte dismissal requires a “close focus” on

consideration of “less drastic alternatives” and whether or not there has been a “warning of

imminent dismissal of the case.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In determining that this action will be dismissed, the court has considered all the

factors set forth in Al-Torki. The first two factors on their face favor the imposition of sanctions

in this case filed by plaintiffs which is now proceeding. Compare Wanderer v. Johnston, 910

F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). Regarding the third factor, defendants already have briefed their

motion to dismiss, and would be prejudiced by the need for further litigation of this matter

despite plaintiff’s non-responsiveness. Moreover, delay itself generally is prejudicial--witness

memories fade and evidence becomes stale or undiscoverable. While the fourth factor favors

resolution on the merits, in this case plaintiffs have declined to oppose the motion to dismiss and

have thus precluded the court’s evaluation of the potential merits of such an opposition. Under

these circumstances, the fourth factor is outweighed by the others. 

Focusing on the fifth Al-Torki factor and warning regarding imminent dismissal,

as required by Oliva, the court in its November 19, 2009 order has advised plaintiffs that this

action is subject to dismissal, directed plaintiffs to file opposition, and granted ample additional

time to oppose the pending motion after plaintiffs failed to timely oppose defendants’ motions to

Case 2:09-cv-02844-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 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

3

dismiss, all to no avail. From plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the most recent order and failure to

appear at the hearing on the motions to dismiss, the court finds that plaintiffs have abandoned

this litigation. The court therefore concludes there is no suitable alternative less drastic sanction

to dismissal.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 28, 2010.

006

lacayo.57

Case 2:09-cv-02844-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 3