Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02012/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02012-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 05:7703 Discrimination - Review of Agency 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABRAR ELAHI SIDDQUI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FREMONT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02012-JSC 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiffs Abrar Siddqui and Rahila Khan bring this civil action against Defendants the 

City of Fremont and Leonard Powell as the Community Preservation Manager for City of 

Fremont. (Dkt. No. 1.) Because Plaintiffs have repeatedly failed to respond to Defendants’ 

motions and the Court’s orders including an Order to Show Cause as to why this action should 

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this action April 17, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) Shortly thereafter, Defendants 

filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 10.) 

After Plaintiffs failed to file a response to the motion within the time allotted under Local Rule 7-

3, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiffs to file their opposition or statement of nonopposition by July 21, 2016. Plaintiffs failed to do so. 

The Court then issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the action should not be 

dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

(Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiffs responded to the Order to Show Cause contending that counsel “never 

received notification that the responsive pleading had been filed” and was thus “unaware of the 

filing of the motion to dismiss.” (Dkt. No. 20 at 1:26-27; 2:4-5.) In response, the Court issued an 

Case 3:16-cv-02012-JSC Document 31 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

order noting that as a registered ECF user counsel would have received notice of each filing in 

this action; however, given that Defendants had not suggested that they had been prejudiced, the 

Court again reset the briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 22.) Five days after 

the Order resetting the briefing schedule, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ State 

Law Causes of Action Pursuant to California’s Anti-SLAPP statute seeking attorneys’ fees and 

costs. (Dkt. No. 23.) 

Plaintiffs thereafter failed to file a response to either motion within the time to do so under

the reset deadline for the motion to dismiss and Local Rule 7-3 for the Anti-SLAPP motion. The 

Court thus issued a second Order to Show Cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Dkt. No. 27.) Plaintiffs were 

ordered to file a written response to the Order to Show Cause by August 29, 2016 and Plaintiffs 

and their counsel were ordered to personally appear and show cause in person on September 8, 

2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom F, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California as to why this 

action should not be dismissed with prejudice for their repeated failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs 

were warned that if they failed to either respond to this Court’s Order or appear on September 8, 

2016 this action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute and Plaintiffs’ counsel will be referred 

to the Northern District’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct pursuant to Local Rule 

11-6(a). 1 Plaintiffs neither filed a written response to the Order to Show Cause nor did they or 

their counsel appear as ordered for the hearing on September 8. Instead, at 3:06 a.m. on the 

morning of the hearing, Plaintiffs filed what purports to be an opposition to the Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss—an opposition that was due on August 11(after the Court had twice extended 

the deadline). (Dkt. No. 29.) The filing makes no reference to either its tardiness or the Order to 

Show Cause.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for 

 

1

This Order was electronically served on Plaintiffs’ counsel and served by mail at the address on 

file with the Court: Brian Kemp Hilliard, Hilliard & Porrino, P.C., 3911 Harrison Street, Oakland, 

CA 94611. (Dkt. No. 27 at 3.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02012-JSC Document 31 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. 

U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a court may sua sponte

dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b)). “A Rule 41(b) dismissal must be supported by a 

showing of unreasonable delay.” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010)

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is 

appropriate, the court must weigh the following 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)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or 

where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 

393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Here, four of the five Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. “The first two 

factors—the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage 

its docket—relate to the “efficient administration of judicial business for the benefit of all litigants 

with cases pending.” Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1279 

(9th Cir. 1980). By failing to file an opposition to the pending motions to dismiss despite being 

given multiple opportunities to do so, failing to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, and 

failing to appear for the Order to Show Cause hearing despite being specifically ordered to appear 

in person, Plaintiffs have delayed adjudication of this action. Non-compliance with procedural 

rules and the Court’s orders wastes “valuable time that [the Court] could have devoted to other ... 

criminal and civil cases on its docket.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

As for the third factor, while “the pendency of the lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial 

itself to warrant dismissal,” the delay caused by Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action despite 

the Court’s orders weighs in favor of dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 

991 (9th Cir. 1999).

The fourth factor is the availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court twice extended the 

deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and after Plaintiffs still 

Case 3:16-cv-02012-JSC Document 31 Filed 09/08/16 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

failed to file an opposition to that motion or the subsequently filed motion to dismiss, the Court 

issued a second Order to Show Cause cautioning Plaintiffs that failure to respond would result in 

dismissal of this action. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 22 & 27.) Thus, the Court has fulfilled its “obligation to 

warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 

1992); see also Ferdick, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“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.”). 

Under this factor, the Court also considers the strength of a plaintiff’s case, if such 

information is available, because the harshness of a dismissal is directly proportionate to the 

likelihood that the plaintiff would prevail if permitted to go forward. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 

F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiffs sue the City of Fremont and Building 

Inspector Leonard Powell alleging claims for (1) violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violation of their due process and equal 

protection rights under the California Constitution; (3) violation of California Civil Code Section 

52.1; (4) negligence; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) intentional infliction of 

emotional distress; and (7) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and discipline. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶

16-41.) Plaintiffs’ claims arise from Defendant Powell’s inspection of the premises at 40224 

Blanchard Street, Fremont California and issuance of a Notice of Violation directing Plaintiffs to 

abate a nuisance. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the “improper notice of 

violation” they were unable to collect rents on the subject premises and forced to repeatedly take 

out the same permits without an explanation of “the reasons for the permits or the costs associated 

thereto.” (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiffs also allege that although they attempted to make the 

necessary repairs, they were told their work was incomplete. (Id. at ¶ 15.) 

Plaintiffs’ bare factual allegations are insufficient to give rise to the claims alleged. “[T]o 

be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint or counterclaim... must contain 

sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to 

defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, “the 

factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it 

Case 3:16-cv-02012-JSC Document 31 Filed 09/08/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and 

continued litigation.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs allege that a building inspector for the City of Fremont 

conducted an inspection of their rental property and “improperly” issued a notice to abate nuisance 

which required them to obtain permits and conduct costly repairs. These allegations are neither 

sufficiently specific to give Defendants “fair notice” of the alleged wrongdoing, nor do they 

suggest an entitlement to relief for either violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights or their rights 

under state law. 

The last factor, which favors disposition on the merits, by definition weighs against 

dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Public policy favors 

disposition of cases on the merits. Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”).

In sum, four of the five relevant factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissing this action in 

its entirety. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (affirming dismissal where three factors favored 

dismissal, while two factors weighed against dismissal). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b). At the hearing on the Order to Show Cause, counsel for 

Defendants withdrew the pending motion to dismiss and Anti-SLAPP motion based on the Court’s 

representation that this action would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court will issue a 

separate order referring Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Hilliard, to the Northern District’s Standing 

Committee on Professional Conduct.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02012-JSC Document 31 Filed 09/08/16 Page 5 of 5