Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00417/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00417-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

Kevin E. Thomas,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Guild Mortgage Company, a California

corporation; AZ Mortgage Consultants, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0417-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff has failed to timely

respond in writing to the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on March 30, 2009. (docket

# 6)

The Court issued its Order to Show Cause on March 30, 2009 as a result of

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the March 6, 2009 Order that he (1) either voluntarily

consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction in writing or elect to proceed before a district judge

by March 23, 2009 and (2) file an Amended Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and

Supporting Information which was fully completed or pay the filing fee of $350.00. (docket

##4, 5) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with either court orders. 

In the March 30, 2009 Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff was forewarned that

pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

1992), trial courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that

power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case without

Case 2:09-cv-00417-LOA Document 8 Filed 04/22/09 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

 Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits a district court to sua sponte dismiss an action

for failure to comply with its orders. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962);

Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Ass’n, 434 F.2d 281, 283-84 (9th Cir. 1970);Gonzales v.

UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 2008 WL 2610552 (N.D.Cal. 2008).

- 2 -

prejudice for failure to prosecute his case or failure to comply with court orders. “The threat

of sanctions promotes compliance with a court’s orders even if the sanctions threatened are

never imposed.” Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., P.3d , 2009 WL 303787, (Az.Ct.App. 2009)

(collecting of federal and state cases of dismissals for failure to comply with court orders).

“It is well established that the district court has the authority to dismiss or to

enter default judgment, depending on which party is at fault, for failure . . . to comply with

its orders.” Flaksa v. Little River Marine Constr. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 887, 887 (5th Cir. 1968)

(citing cases); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991) (court may “fashion

appropriate sanction for conduct” including “outright dismissal”). “While the authority is

reiterated in some of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for particular situations,1

 the

power is one inherent in the courts ‘in the interest of the orderly administration of justice.’

It may be exercised sua sponte under proper circumstances. The exercise of the authority is

discretionary, and is subject to review for abuse of discretion.” Flaksa, 389 F.2d at 887. 

A district court’s inherent authority to sanction parties for failing to comply

with its orders exists, in part, to prevent “‘disobedience [of] the orders of the Judiciary,

regardless of whether such disobedience interfered with the conduct of trial.’” Chambers,

501 U.S. at 44 (quoting Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798

(1987)). “Dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with the rules [is] within the

court’s discretion.” Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3rd 837, 841 (9th

Cir. 2000) (citing Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187, 188 (2nd

Cir. 1943)). Because a district court has the inherent power to control its docket, it may

exercise that power by imposing sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case.

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural

Case 2:09-cv-00417-LOA Document 8 Filed 04/22/09 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

- 3 -

Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (public interest “in expeditious

resolution of litigation,” court’s need to manage docket, risk of prejudice to party seeking

sanctions, public policy favoring disposition on the merits, availability of lesser sanctions,

bad faith of violating party, relationship between conduct and merits); Poulis v. State Farm

Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984) (personal responsibility of party, prejudice

to other party, history of dilatory conduct, willfulness or bad faith, other sanctions, merits of

claim or defense). 

 In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court

order, district courts weigh five factors: (1) the public interest; (2) the court’s need to

manage the docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. Additionally, Plaintiff’s failure in this case to comply with court

orders is frustrating the Court’s responsibilities mandated by Rule 1, FED.R.CIV.P., (“These

rules . . . shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination of every action.”) (emphasis added), and by the Civil Justice Reform Act of

1990, 28 U.S.C. §471 et seq., such as, “setting early, firm trial dates, such that the trial is

scheduled to occur to occur within eighteen months after the filing of the complaint. . . .” 28

U.S.C. §473(a)(2) (emphasis added). A pro se plaintiff’s status does not discharge his

obligation to “abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.” Carter v. Commissioner

of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

 After considering and weighing all five Ferdik factors to determine if

dismissal is appropriate due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court

concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice is appropriate and just

under the circumstances of this case. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / / 

Case 2:09-cv-00417-LOA Document 8 Filed 04/22/09 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

- 4 -

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed without

prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate this case.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00417-LOA Document 8 Filed 04/22/09 Page 4 of 4