Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02559/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02559-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINA FRAIZER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-02559-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

On May 7, 2015, pro se plaintiff Regina Fraizer filed a complaint against defendants Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A., and Martha G. Bronitsky. Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1. The case was 

removed to this Court on June 9, 2015. See id. On June 15, 2015, Wells Fargo filed a motion to 

dismiss the complaint. See Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 10. Ms. Fraizer did not file a response to 

Wells Fargo’s motion within the time period required by Civil Local Rule 7-3. On August 14, 

2015, the Court ordered Ms. Fraizer to show cause by August 24, 2015, why Wells Fargo’s 

motion to dismiss should not be granted. Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 12. Ms. Fraizer did not 

respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause within the required time period. 

The August 24th deadline has passed without a response from Ms. Fraizer, and the Court 

dismisses the action for failure to prosecute.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides the Court with authority to dismiss a case 

for failure to prosecute or to comply with any of its orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a claim for 

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following 

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 

Case 3:15-cv-02559-JD Document 14 Filed 09/02/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of 

less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” 

See Espinosa v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. C 10-04464 SBA, 2011 WL 334209, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 31, 2011) (citing Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

Application of these factors here weighs in favor of dismissal. Ms. Fraizer has failed to 

file a response to defendant’s motion to dismiss as required by the Local Rules and by court order, 

despite having been warned that the case might be dismissed as a result for failure to prosecute. 

See Dkt. No. 12. With respect to the first factor, “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution 

of litigation always favors dismissal.” Espinosa, 2011 WL 334209, at *1 (citing Yourish v. Cal. 

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). For the second factor, the Court must be able to 

manage its docket “without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291 

F.3d at 642; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (non-compliance with a court’s order diverts 

“valuable time that [the court] could have devoted to other major and serious criminal and civil 

cases on its docket.”). For the third factor, Ms. Fraizer has filed nothing at all since the case was 

removed and has offered no explanation for her failure to respond to defendant’s motion to 

dismiss or the Court’s order to show cause. This weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. See 

Espinosa, 2011 WL 334209, at *2. With respect to the fourth factor, the Court already issued an 

Order to Show Cause, which provided Ms. Fraizer with additional notice of the pending motion to 

dismiss, as well as additional time to respond to the merits of that motion. See Dkt. No. 12. The 

Court’s issuance of the Order to Show Cause satisfies the consideration of less drastic sanctions 

requirement. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Although the fifth factor -- the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits -- might weigh against dismissal, on its own, the cumulative 

weight of the other factors overrides it. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (finding district court did 

not abuse its discretion in dismissing case where three of the five factors weighed in favor of 

dismissal).

CONCLUSION

Because four of the five relevant factors weigh in favor of granting defendant’s unopposed 

motion to dismiss, the Court grants that motion and dismisses this case in its entirety with 

Case 3:15-cv-02559-JD Document 14 Filed 09/02/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prejudice. The clerk will enter judgment and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02559-JD Document 14 Filed 09/02/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINA FRAIZER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02559-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on September 2, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Regina Fraizer

1615 Francisco St.

Berkeley, CA 94703 

Dated: September 2, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:15-cv-02559-JD Document 14 Filed 09/02/15 Page 4 of 4