Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02089/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02089-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE A. SALDATE, JR., CASE NO. CV F 09-2089 LJO SMS

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO DISMISS REMAINING

DEFENDANTS

vs. (Docs. 27, 29.)

WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

This Court’s February 12, 2010 orders (“February 12 orders”) dismissed with prejudice several

defendants and required plaintiff George A. Saldate, Jr.’s (“Mr. Saldate’s”) counsel, no later than

February 22, 2010, to file papers to show cause why this Court should not dismiss this action against

remaining defendants Valley Wide Home Loans, Craig H. Barton and Norfilia Garza. Each of the

February 12 orders “ADMONISHES Mr. Saldate and his counsel that this Court will dismiss this

action against defendants Valley Wide Home Loans, Craig H. Barton and Norfilia Garza if Mr.

Saldate’s counsel fails to comply with this order and fails to file timely papers to show cause why

this Court should not dismiss this action against defendants Valley Wide Home Loans, Craig H.

Barton and Norfilia Garza.” (Bold in original.) Mr. Saldate and/or his counsel have failed to file

1

Case 1:09-cv-02089-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 02/23/10 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

27

28

papers to show cause why this Court should not dismiss defendants Valley Wide Home Loans, Craig

H. Barton and Norfilia Garza to disobey the February 12 orders. 

DISCUSSION

Failure To Comply With Orders

This Court’s Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to complywith these

[Local] Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have inherent power to control

their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, theymayimpose sanctions including, where appropriate

. . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or local rules. See, e.g.,

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule);

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to complywith an order

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal

for failure to complywith local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone

v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution

and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining whetherto dismiss an action for failure to complywith a court order or local rules

or for lack of prosecution, a court must consider several 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 defendant;

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

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-1261; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In this case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest

in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal as Mr. Saldate and/or his counsel indicate a lack of

interest to further litigate or prosecute this action. The third factor -- risk of prejudice to defendant --

also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

2

Case 1:09-cv-02089-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 02/23/10 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

27

28

The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed

by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that its failure

to obeythe court’s orderwill result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. 

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Each of the

February 12 orders “ADMONISHES Mr. Saldate and his counsel that this Court will dismiss this

action against defendants Valley Wide Home Loans, Craig H. Barton and Norfilia Garza if Mr.

Saldate’s counsel fails to comply with this order and fails to file timely papers to show cause why

this Court should not dismiss this action against defendants Valley Wide Home Loans, Craig H.

Barton and Norfilia Garza.” (Bold in original.) Mr. Saldate and his counsel ignored the February 12

orders and received adequate warning that dismissal will result from disobedience of this Court’s orders

and failure to prosecute this action. Quite simply, Mr. Saldate and his counsel have failed to comply

with this Court’s orders and to meaningfully and intelligently respond.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DISMISSES without prejudice this action against

defendants Valley Wide Home Loans, Craig H. Barton and Norfilia Garza and DIRECTS the clerk to

close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-02089-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 02/23/10 Page 3 of 3