Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00441/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00441-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Zandonatti, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Colorado Federal Savings Bank; EMC

Mortgage Corporation; Quality Loan

Service Corp.,et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-441-TUC-RCC

ORDER

On November 23, 2010, the Honorable Judge Glenda E. Edmonds, United States

Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (Recommendation) in this matter.

(Doc. 21). The Recommendation advised the Court to grant the Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 4) and Motion for a Summary Ruling (Doc. 14) pursuant to LRCiv. 7.2(i),

because Plaintiff failed to respond to either motion. Plaintiff filed objections to the

Recommendation on December 10, 2010. (Doc. 22).

Plaintiff argues that under the test in Ghazali, summary dismissal of this case would

be an abuse of discretion because the fourth and fifth factors weigh against dismissal. The

fourth factor - public policy favoring adjudication on the merits - always weighs against

dismissal, and Plaintiff’s discussion of the merits of his case does not change the final

analysis. 

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 23 Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

As to the fifth factor, Plaintiff argues that less drastic sanctions are available, because

his failure to respond was the result of ignorance and nothing more. However, the only

explanation Plaintiff offers for his failure to respond to either motion is that he did not know

that he had an obligation to respond. (Doc. 22, p. 4). However, if he was not aware

previously, Defendant’s Motion for a Summary Ruling certainly put him on notice of his

obligation. While pro se litigants are entitled to a certain amount of leniency in the

construction of their pleadings, they must still follow the rules of procedure. Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). The fifth factor still favors dismissal.

The Court considers the Recommendation (Doc. 21) to be thorough and wellreasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the record, including Plaintiff’s

objections, the Court will ADOPT the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edmonds.

Therefore 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Edmonds’s

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) and

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Ruling (Doc. 14).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with

prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 14th day of December, 2010.

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 23 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 2