Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02508/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02508-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY J. BISI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHASE AUTO J.P. MORGAN CHASE 

BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-CV-02508-TLN-CSK PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 28)

On July 19, 2024, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations 

granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Gregory J. Bisi and Laurie D. Bisi’s 

complaint without prejudice.1 7/19/2024 Order (ECF No. 20). Plaintiffs filed objections to 

the findings of recommendations on August 6, 2024. (ECF No. 21.) On September 17, 

2024, the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full, granting the 

motion to dismiss with leave to amend and directing Plaintiffs to file an amended 

complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of the order. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiffs were

cautioned that failure to timely comply with the order would result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed. 7/19/2024 Order at 12. The applicable deadline passed, 

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:23-cv-02508-TLN-CSK Document 29 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 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

2

and the Court’s records show that Plaintiffs failed to file either an amended complaint or 

a notice of voluntary dismissal. Accordingly, on November 1, 2024, the Court ordered 

Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within fourteen days (14). 11/1/2024 Order (ECF 

No. 28). This order was served on Plaintiffs on November 4, 2024. The applicable 

deadline has passed, and the Court’s records again show that Plaintiffs failed to file 

either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a court may dismiss an action for 

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

court’s local rules, or any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (approving dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a party’s 

failure to follow the district court’s local rules). This Court’s Local Rules are in accord. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 

and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the 

Court.”); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply 

with the federal rules, local rules, or other applicable law may support dismissal of that 

party’s action). The court may act on its own accord in exercising this authority. Hells 

Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)).

The Ninth Circuit has found the following factors relevant in determining whether a 

case should be dismissed under Rule 41(b):

(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 defendant(s); 

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.

Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-02508-TLN-CSK Document 29 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 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

3

II. DISCUSSION

Applying the factors for involuntary dismissal, the Court finds this action should be 

dismissed. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 890. The first two factors weigh in 

favor of dismissal because the public has a strong interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation, and Plaintiffs have failed to take the steps necessary to move this case 

forward. In addition, this district court in particular has a strong need and interest in 

managing its docket given the extremely high caseload in the Eastern District of 

California. The third factor also favors dismissal, because, at a minimum, defendants 

have been deprived of an opportunity to be promptly notified of the lawsuit and prepare 

their defense. With the passage of time, memories fade and evidence becomes stale.

As to the fifth factor, the Court has already tried less drastic alternatives. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs were given thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint after their 

original complaint was dismissed. (See ECF No. 25.) When Plaintiffs did not file an 

amended complaint within the timeframe, the Court issued an order to show cause why 

the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and ordered Plaintiffs to file an 

amended complaint within fourteen (14) days. 11/1/2024 Order. The Court warned 

Plaintiffs that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that 

the action be dismissed. Id. at 2.

Finally, as to the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits, that factor is outweighed here. Indeed, it is Plaintiffs’ own failure to 

prosecute the case and comply with the rules that precludes a resolution on the merits. 

Therefore, after careful consideration, the Court concludes dismissal for failure to 

prosecute is appropriate. See Hells Canyon, 403 F.3d at 689 (approving court’s sua 

sponte dismissal under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s orders).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the findings above, the Court RECOMMENDS:

1. Plaintiffs’ claims be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Case 2:23-cv-02508-TLN-CSK Document 29 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 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

4

41(b); and

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

14 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. This document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 

reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14

days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 

455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 26, 2024

5, bisi.2508.23

Case 2:23-cv-02508-TLN-CSK Document 29 Filed 12/27/24 Page 4 of 4