Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02216/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02216-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO)

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Orlando Santos Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 

Defendant.

No. CV10-2216-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed a complaint on September 17, 2010 in the Superior Court for 

Maricopa County. Defendants Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Wells Fargo Bank, NA 

(“Wells Fargo”) removed the case to this Court on October 18, 2010. Doc. 1. On 

October 25, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted (Doc. 6), and on November 22, 2010, filed a motion for 

summary disposition of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 7). Plaintiff has filed no response to 

either motion, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 12.1(b), 56.1(d); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6(d). On February 25, 2011, this Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to 

respond by March 11, 2011. Doc. 8. The order clearly indicated that failure to file a 

response will result in granting the motion to dismiss. Id. at 2:7-9, 2:17-18. The order 

also indicated that failure to prosecute may result in dismissal of this case. Id. at 2:9-12. 

On March 28, 2011, Wells Fargo filed a renewed motion for summary disposition of the 

motion to dismiss. Doc. 9. 

 Plaintiff has not filed a response as required by this Court’s February 25 order. 

Case 2:10-cv-02216-DGC Document 10 Filed 04/11/11 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i), “such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . 

granting of the motion.” The Court will grant Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss. 

 In addition, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint against Wells Fargo for 

failure to comply with the Court’s order and for lack of prosecution. 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 Eng’rs, Inc. v. Electric Eng’g 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 violated, 

factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4 cuts against case dispositive sanctions, so 3 and 5 

. . . are decisive.” Valley Eng’rs, 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 an 

appropriate sanction 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, Wells Fargo will be subject to prejudice if a 

sanction of dismissal is not imposed. Wells Fargo is unable to move forward with its 

defense of this case when Plaintiff refuses to respond to its motions and the Court’s order. 

Finally, the Court has considered less drastic sanctions, but none is apparent. Plaintiff 

has not responded to motions and has refused to comply with the Court’s order. The 

Court specifically warned Plaintiff that dismissal could result from further inaction. The 

Court concludes that the appropriate resolution of this problem is to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

case. 

Case 2:10-cv-02216-DGC Document 10 Filed 04/11/11 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is granted. 

2. Wells Fargo’s motion for summary disposition (Doc. 7) is granted. 

3. Wells Fargo’s renewed motion for summary disposition (Doc. 9) is 

granted. 

4. The Clerk shall terminate this case. 

 Dated this 8th day of April, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-02216-DGC Document 10 Filed 04/11/11 Page 3 of 3