Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01724/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01724-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

ALFONSO MIRA and CARLA MIRA, 

individuals, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE 

SERVICING, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 10-1724 SBA 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiffs Alfonso and Carla Mira filed the instant mortgage fraud action in state court 

on March 5, 2010. On April 22, 2010, Defendant American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 

removed the action to this Court, and filed a motion to dismiss on April 29, 2010. On May 3, 

2010, the matter was reassigned to this Court, and the motion was scheduled for hearing on 

July 14, 2010. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any opposition or statement of non-opposition 

was due by June 23, 2010, which is twenty-one days prior to the hearing date. Plaintiffs did 

not respond to the motion. Thus, on June 30, 2010, the Court issued an order to show cause 

(“OSC”) directing Plaintiffs to demonstrate, through the filing of a Certificate of Counsel, why 

the instant action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for lack 

of prosecution. Plaintiffs were given seven days to respond to the OSC, and were warned that 

the failure to respond “WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS UPON WHICH TO 

Case 4:10-cv-01724-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/13/10 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 

DISMISS THE ACTION.” (Order at 2, Docket 20.) Despite that warning, the Court has 

received no response to the OSC. 

Rule 41(b) authorizes the Court to dismiss an action where a plaintiff has failed to 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s local rules or any court order. 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to this authority, the Ninth 

Circuit has held that the failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss in contravention of 

the local rules or court order is grounds for granting the motion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit held that in exercising its 

discretion to dismiss an action for failing to comply with a district court’s local rules or orders, 

the court is “required to weigh 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 the 

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

availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986)). Upon balancing the Ghazali factors under the facts of this case, the Court 

finds that dismissal is warranted. 

 The first and second factors both favor dismissal. Under Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiffs were 

obligated to file their opposition to the motion to dismiss by no later than June 23, 2010. In 

violation of that rule, they failed to do so. Though the Court could have granted the motion as 

unopposed, the Court issued an OSC to provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity to demonstrate 

why the action should not be dismissed. Plaintiffs failed to respond as ordered. Plaintiffs’ 

repeated failures to comport with Court’s filing requirements undermine the Court’s ability to 

expedite the resolution of the action. Such non-compliance inherently delays resolution of the 

case and insures to the detriment of the public. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 

(9th Cir. 2002) (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to 

routine noncompliance of litigants”); Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th 

Cir. 1999) (recognizing court’s need to control its own docket); 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.”). 

Case 4:10-cv-01724-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/13/10 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 

 The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendant, is related to the strength of the 

plaintiffs’ excuse for the default, if any. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Here, Plaintiffs have 

offered no “excuse” for their non-compliance, nor is any apparent from the record. Since 

Defendant’s filing of its motion over two months ago, the Court has received no filings from 

Plaintiffs. In short, Plaintiffs simply have failed to provide any reason whatsoever for their 

failure to comply with the Court’s Orders and none is apparent from the record. These facts 

also weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991; Ghazali, 46 F.3d. at 

54. 

 The fourth factor favoring disposition of cases on the merits, by definition, weighs 

against dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of cases on 

the merits. Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal”). 

 Finally, the Court has considered less drastic alternatives to dismissal. As noted, the 

Court previously could have dismissed the action based on Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. But instead of granting the motion at that time, the Court 

afforded Plaintiffs another opportunity to respond to the motion. Repeating the rule expressed 

in its Standing Orders, the Court warned Plaintiffs that it would grant the motion if they did not 

timely respond to the OSC. “[A] district court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the 

court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of [less drastic sanctions]’ 

requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(“We conclude that because Brydges was warned of the consequence of his failure to respond 

to the appellees’ summary judgment motion, the district court did not err by deeming his 

failure to respond a consent to the motion for summary judgment”). 

In sum, weighing the relevant factors, the Court exercises its discretion and grants the 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

2. The hearing previously scheduled for July 14, 2010, is VACATED. 

Case 4:10-cv-01724-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/13/10 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 

3. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 9, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-01724-SBA Document 22 Filed 07/13/10 Page 4 of 4