Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01721/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01721-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition to Quiet Title

---

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

1

 However, the cause of action is the property of the estate. Turner v. Cooke, 362

F.3d 1219, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2004); Cusano v. Klien, 264 F.3d 936, 945 (9th Cir. 2001).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Soane Tuita; Tupou Tuita, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-1721-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On February 20, 2013, the Court issued the following order:

On October 17, 2012, Defendant MTC Financial filed a motion to dismiss

this case. Plaintiffs did not file a response. Instead, on October 24, 2012,

Plaintiff Soane Tuita filed a notice of removal and a notice that she had filed

bankruptcy. It is unclear to the Court what Plaintiff is seeking to remove.

Therefore, th[e] request that the, “District Court Action be removed to this

Court and the District Court Action be placed upon the docket of this Court as

an adversary proceeding” is denied.

Generally, the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code do not

apply to proceedings initiated by the debtor, as is the case here. See

Martin-Trigona v. Champion Federal Savings & Loan, 1988 WL 46596, *2

(N.D. Ill. 1988); In re Hill, 39 B.R. 894, 897 (Bkrtcy. Or., 1984).1

Accordingly, Plaintiffs must respond to the motion to dismiss or the Court will

deem their failure to respond to be consent to the motion being granted.

See Local Rule Civil 7.2(i); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that by March 20, 2013, Plaintiffs shall respond to the

Motion to Dismiss, or the Court will grant the motion for failing to comply

with a Court order and failing to prosecute (see Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b)).

Case 2:12-cv-01721-JAT Document 13 Filed 04/22/13 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

 

Doc. 12.

Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion. “Failure to follow a district court’s local

rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)

(citing U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Although we construe pleadings

liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Id. at 54 (citing

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). “Before dismissing the action, the district

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 [party

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

the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d

1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions

in most cases, while the fourth cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key

factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d

652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, the public interest in expeditious resolution and the court’s need to manage its

docket both favor dismissal. Further, the risk of prejudice to Defendants exists because they

have expended the resources necessary to move to dismiss and this case is not proceeding.

Because the Court warned Plaintiffs of this result, and they still failed to respond to the

motion, the Court cannot craft a lesser sanction than dismissal. Thus, only the public policy

favoring resolution of cases on the merits weighs against dismissal.

Given that four factors weigh in favor of dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to

prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Defendant’s motion to dismiss

(Doc. 9) is granted consistent with Local Rule Civil 7.2(i).

DATED this 22nd day of April, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01721-JAT Document 13 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 2