Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01507/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01507-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed August 11, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MONICA STEMPLEWSKI, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., and 

DOES 1 to 10, 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C10-01507 HRL 

ORDER GRANTING SUNTRUST’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE 

[Re: Docket No. 14] 

Plaintiff Monica Stemplewski (“Stemplewski”) sought to modify her home mortgage with 

defendant SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (“SunTrust”). When that effort failed and SunTrust instigated 

foreclosure proceedings, she sued SunTrust in for: (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) negligence, 

(4) intentional tort, and (5) violation of the California Foreclosure Prevention Act. SunTrust 

thereafter removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds. 

Previously, on May 26, this Court dismissed Stemplewski’s complaint with prejudice as to 

her intentional tort claim and without prejudice as to the rest of her claims. (Docket No. 13.) The 

Court gave her leave to file a First Amended Complaint within fourteen days of the order (or by 

June 9). (Id.) 

On June 14, nineteen days after the Court’s order, SunTrust’s counsel, Eric Kemp, sent an 

email to Stemplewski’s counsel, Jon Fried, informing him that Stemplewski had missed the deadline 

for filing an amended complaint. (Docket No. 15, Ex. A.) Kemp wrote that SunTrust did not want 

Case 5:10-cv-01507-HRL Document 19 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

to incur attorney’s fees preparing a motion to dismiss if an amended complaint was going to be filed 

(even if late), but it would do so if no amended complaint was filed by June 18. (Id.) Fried replied 

to Kemp and stated that an amended complaint would be filed by then. (Id., Ex. B.) 

Despite Fried’s representation, an amended complaint was never filed, and so on July 2 

SunTrust filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Stemplewski never filed an opposition 

to SunTrust’s motion, nor did she or her counsel appear at the August 10 hearing. And she has still 

not filed an amended complaint. As described below, the Court grants SunTrust’s motion.1

DISCUSSION

Rule 41(b) authorizes a defendant to move for dismissal “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to 

prosecute or to comply with these rules of any order of court.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). In order to 

involuntarily dismiss under FRCP 41(b), “the court must consider five 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 the merits; and 

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 

(9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998); 

additional internal citations omitted). Generally, the court should make explicit findings regarding 

each factor before dismissing an action. See Cannon Partners, Ltd. v. Cape Code Biolab Corp., 225 

F.R.D. 247, 251 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261). Dismissal is proper “where at 

least four factors support dismissal, . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” 

Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263). 

The first two factors strongly favor dismissal. Not prosecuting a case is the opposite of 

expeditious resolution of litigation. And by not filing an amended complaint within the time 

allowed by the Court’s order, the action has come to a complete halt and Stemplewski has taken 

control of the pace of the Court’s docket. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990. 

The third factor also strongly supports dismissal. There is a rebuttable presumption of 

prejudice to a defendant from an unreasonable delay or the unexplained failure to prosecute. 

 

1

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, all parties have expressly 

consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by the 

undersigned. 

Case 5:10-cv-01507-HRL Document 19 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 400-01 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Anderson v. Air West, 

Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)). The delay here is definitely unreasonable as Stemplewski 

still has not filed any amended complaint, and she obviously has not rebutted the presumption of 

prejudice since she has not filed anything. 

The fourth factor arguably does not support dismissal, since the Court would not necessarily 

be disposing of the case on its merits. Stemplewski might be able to amend her claims to survive a 

motion to dismiss. However, this Court already dismissed her original complaint because it did not 

state any claims upon which relief could be granted. 

The fifth factor supports dismissal. This Court does not see any other less drastic 

alternatives available. She has not filed an amended complaint, and the Court cannot compel her to 

do so. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Suntrust’s motion and DISMISSES WITH 

PREJUDICE all of Stemplewski’s claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 11, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-01507-HRL Document 19 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

C10-01507 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Erik Wayne Kemp ek@severson.com, ano@severson.com, klm@severson.com 

John B. Sullivan jbs@severson.com, klm@severson.com 

Jonathan Fried jon.fried@yahoo.com 

Mary Kate Sullivan mks@severson.com, vhn@severson.com 

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

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

 

Case 5:10-cv-01507-HRL Document 19 Filed 08/11/10 Page 4 of 4