Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01154/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01154-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE MARCINKIEWICZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-CV-1154-H

(DHB)

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS

UNDER RULE 41(b)

[Doc. No. 9]

vs.

JP MORGAN CHASE formally doing

business as WASHINGTON

MUTUAL BANK; QUALITY LOAN

SERVICE CORP; and DOES 1

through 50 inclusive,

Defendants.

On July 28, 2014, Defendant JP Morgan Chase (“Defendant” or “JPMorgan”)

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to amend after JPMorgan’s

motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff George

Marcinkiewicz (“Plaintiff”) did not file an opposition. The Court, pursuant to its

discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), submits the motion on the papers and vacates

the hearing set for September 2, 2014. The Court grants Defendant’s motion and

dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Background

On April 3, 2014 Plaintiff George Marcinkiewicz filed a complaint in the

Superior Court of the State of California. (Doc. No. 1-1.) On May 7, 2014, Defendant

JPMorgan, with the consent of Defendant Quality Loan, removed the action based on

- 1 - 14cv1154

Case 3:14-cv-01154-H-DHB Document 11 Filed 08/28/14 Page 1 of 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

federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 3.) On May 14, 2014, JPMorgan filed a

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. No. 5.) On June 19, 2014, the Court

granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. (Doc. No. 8 at 9.) The Court

granted Plaintiff thirty days from June 19, 2014 to file an amended complaint. (Id.) 

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within thirty days of June 19, 2014. On

July 28, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff did not file an

opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a defendant may move to

dismiss the action or any claims if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the

Federal Rules or a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Under Rule 41(b), the court may

dismiss a claim with prejudice if the plaintiff has failed to amend the complaint within

the time specified by an earlier order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) where plaintiff

failed to amend within the thirty-day period provided in the initial order dismissing the

claims). In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to amend within the time

provided, 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 their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Yourish v. California

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff did not amend his complaint or provide the Court notice of his

intent not to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the Court’s June 19, 2014

order dismissing his claims. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065

(9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s

ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will

- 2 - 14cv1154

Case 3:14-cv-01154-H-DHB Document 11 Filed 08/28/14 Page 2 of 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

not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). Further, as

of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or given notice

of his intent not to file. After reviewing the five factors, the Court finds the public’s

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the Court’s need to manage its docket,

the risk of prejudice to Defendant, and the lack of less drastic alternatives support

dismissal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990-92; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261-63. 

Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant JPMorgan’s motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Rule 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 28, 2014

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 3 - 14cv1154

Case 3:14-cv-01154-H-DHB Document 11 Filed 08/28/14 Page 3 of 3