Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00088/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00088-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- 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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AOM Group, LLC, Trustee of Eagle Eye

Land Trust, Felipe Gonzalez, Beneficiary,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Loancity; Prescott Title; Citimortgage,

Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc.; Michael A. Bosco, Jr.;

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Its

Assignees and/or Successors-in-Interest,

and Does 1-40,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-00088-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On June 23, 2010, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 18) and directed

Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants CitiMortgage and Federal Home Loan Mortgage

Corporation should not be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

The Ninth Circuit has developed “a five-part ‘test’ to determine whether a dismissal

sanction is just: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation; (2) the

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions;

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of

less drastic sanctions.’” Valley Engineers, Inc. v. Electric Engineering Co., 158 F.3d 1051,

1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also

Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). “[W]here a court order is

Case 2:10-cv-00088-GMS Document 19 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

violated, factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4 cuts against case dispositive sanctions, so

3 and 5 . . . are decisive.” Valley Engineers, 158 F.3d at 1057. Factor 5 “involves

consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly discussed alternative sanctions,

whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of

dismissal.” Id. 

Considering this five-factor test, the Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate in

this case. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need

to manage its docket require action when a plaintiff refuses to prosecute a case. In addition,

Defendants will be subject to the prejudice of increasing and continuing litigation expenses

if dismissal is not entered. Finally, the Court has imposed the less drastic of dismissal

without prejudice in the event Plaintiff desires to reassert any claims it believes to be

meritorious. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Dismissing without prejudice Defendants CitiMortgage Incorporated and

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

2. Directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this action.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00088-GMS Document 19 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2