Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01800/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01800-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL TOLLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES 

LLC,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01800-LJO-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

OBJECTIONS DUE: 14 DAYS

INTRODUCTION

On March 10, 2016, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement indicating that settlement had 

been reached and requesting “45 days to file the necessary dismissal papers.” (Doc. 7.) By its 

order entered on March 11, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ request and ordered that the 

parties file “appropriate papers to dismiss or conclude this action in its entirety” by April 25, 2016. 

(Doc. 8.) The Court cautioned that “[f]ailure to comply with this order may be grounds for the 

imposition of sanctions on counsel or parties who contributed to the violation of this order.” (Id.) 

The parties failed to file their dismissal papers by April 25, 2016. (See Docket.)

By its order entered on September 12, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to file their 

dismissal documents, or a joint status report indicating why such documents cannot be timely 

Case 1:15-cv-01800-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 03/21/17 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

2

filed, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 21, 2016. (Doc. 9.) No dismissal documents were

filed.

On February 27, 2017, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) ordering the 

parties to file dismissal documents or a statement showing cause why the Court should not 

recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed. (Doc. 10.) In its 

OSC, the Court cautioned the parties that, if they failed to file this statement by March 6, 2017, the 

Court would recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its 

entirety. (Id.)

On March 10, 2017, Defendant filed a “Response to Order for Show Cause,” in which it 

indicates that while the case has settled, Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to return signed dismissal 

documents. (Doc. 11.) As such, Defendant requests that the case be dismissed with prejudice. 

(Id.)

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to 

control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including, 

where appropriate . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 

amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for 

failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiff to keep court apprised of address); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal 

for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local rules).

Case 1:15-cv-01800-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 03/21/17 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

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order or failure to 

comply with the Local Rules, the court must consider several factors, including: “(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.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; see 

also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. “The public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 

(quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Here, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 

the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 

prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises 

from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 

a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 

satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 

F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The OSC expressly ordered Plaintiff to file a 

statement showing cause why the Court should not recommend to the presiding district court 

judge that this action be dismissed for failing to comply with the Court’s September 12, 2016

order requiring the filing of dismissal documents. (Doc. 10.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 

warning that sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the case, would result from his 

noncompliance with the OSC.

Despite the Court’s repeated admonitions, Plaintiff has exhibited no intent to proceed with 

prosecuting his case – as evidenced by his repeated failure to return dismissal documents to 

Defendant. (See Doc. 11.) Pursuant to Local Rule 110 and the Court’s inherent power to 

sanction, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice.

//

//

Case 1:15-cv-01800-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 03/21/17 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

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED with 

prejudice for failing to comply with the Court’s OSC entered February 27, 2017.

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff at his 

address listed on the docket for this matter.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 

(14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01800-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 03/21/17 Page 4 of 4