Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00330/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00330-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

C-06-00330 RMW

SPT

E-FILED on 6/9/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL ARIKAT AND PASIMA

ARIKAT, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.; LOWE'S HIW,

INC.; MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES,

INC.; MBNA MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.;

MIDCOAST CREDIT CORP.; DISCOVER

FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; HOME

DEPOT U.S.A., INC.; SEARS, ROEBUCK

AND CO.; WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL

CALIFORNIA, INC.; FAIR ISAAC

CORPORATION; TRANS UNION LLC;

EQUIFAX INC.; EXPERIAN SERVICES

CORP.

Defendants.

No. C-06-00330 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

[Re Docket Nos. 79, 81]

Defendant Fair Isaac Corporation ("Fair Isaac") seeks involuntary dismissal of plaintiffs'

complaint for failure to comply with court order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Defendants

Lowe's HIW, Inc. ("Lowe's) and Macy's Department Stores, Inc. ("Macy's) join in the motion. On

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 84 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 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

1 The twenty days were from the date of the court's written order, which meant

plaintiffs' amended complaint was to be filed by May 23, 2006.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 2

April 28, 2006 the court heard oral argument on Fair Isaac, Lowe's, and Macy's motions to dismiss

plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim. On May 3, 2006 the court issued an order granting

defendants' motions to dismiss. The court granted Fair Isaac's motion to dismiss with prejudice

except as to plaintiffs' first cause of action. The court granted Macy's and Lowe's motion to dismiss

with prejudice as to plaintiffs' second cause of action. Plaintiffs were given twenty (20) days leave

to amend.1 Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on May 30, 2006, seven days late. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides in relevant part "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to

comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of

any claim against the defendant." In the Ninth Circuit, involuntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b) may be proper where a plaintiff, given the opportunity to amend or be dismissed, does

nothing. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004). In Edwards, the Ninth

Circuit noted that where a plaintiff is given "the opportunity to amend or be dismissed [and does]

nothing[,] . . . resources continue to be consumed by a case sitting idly on the court's docket." Id.

The district court must consider five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case under Rule

41(b): "(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 alternatives." Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit "may affirm a dismissal where at least four

factors support dismissal, or where at least three factors 'strongly' support dismissal." Id. 

As in both Yourish and Edwards, the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation

and the court's need to manage its docket support dismissal where, as here, following a finding of

failure to state a claim plaintiffs are given an opportunity to amend but fail to amend within the

allotted time. In Yourish, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's finding that "[p]laintiffs'

noncompliance has caused the action to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing [p]laintiffs to

control the pace of the docket rather than the [c]ourt" and held "the public's interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation always favors dismissal." Id. On the other hand, the public policy favoring

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 84 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 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

2 The court notes that plaintiffs had also filed their oppositions to Fair Isaac, Macy's,

and Lowe's motions to dismiss ten days late. 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 3

disposition of cases on their merits weighs against dismissal. Here, plaintiffs' counsel did not move

to enlarge time or otherwise notify the court or opposing counsel of the reasons why an amended

complaint was not filed by the date ordered by the court. Clearly, plaintiffs' disregard of the Local

Rules as well as the courtesies due opposing counsel and the court was inappropriate.2 Nevertheless,

the court does not find that the delay presents prejudice to defendants warranting dismissal. This is

plaintiffs' first amendment to the complaint and, at this early stage in the litigation, the court

concludes that there are less drastic alternatives than dismissal. Plaintiffs are advised in future to

refer to and follow the applicable Local Rules if they are unable to meet filing deadlines.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES defendants' motion for involuntary dismissal

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 6/8/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 84 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Stanley Hilton FROG727@AOL.COM 

Counsel for Defendants:

Deborah Barack dbarack@stroock.com

Albert Finch tfinch@eakdl.com

Martin L. Fineman edithshertz@dwt.com

Brian C. Frontino bfrontino@stroock.com

Deanna L. Johnston dljohnston@jonesday.com

James R. McGuire jmcguire@mofo.com

Stacy Marie Monahan smonahan@jonesday.com

Andrew W. Moritz Amoritz@Stroock.com

Stephen Michael Rummage steverummage@dwt.com

William L. Stern wstern@mofo.com

Darya V. Swingle daryaswingle@dwt.com

Michele Kathleen Trausch mtrausch@hansonbridgett.com 

Julia H. Veit jveit@hansonbridgett.com 

Chris Jacob Young cyoung@mofo.com

Felicia Yu fyu@reedsmith.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 6/9/06 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 84 Filed 06/09/06 Page 4 of 4