Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02393/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02393-3/pdf.json

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

1

 Plaintiff initially claimed not to have received copies of the motions even though

they were shown to have been mailed to him. Doc. 67. As a result, the Court directed the

clerk to mail copies of the motion to Plaintiff. The Court’s records show that the motions

were mailed to Plaintiff by the Clerk on June 14, 2010.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eddie Willie Taylor, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The United States; the U.S. Internal

Revenue Service; the U.S. Department of

Education; the Department of the

Treasury; Kroll Factual Data Bureau;

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.;

Equifax Credit Information Services,

Inc.; Trans Union LLC; Landsafe Credit

Inc.; Lamson Junior College; Arizona

Education Loan Marketing Corporation;

and Southwest Student Services

Corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2393-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 16, 2010. Doc. 51. Motions to dismiss

with prejudice have been filed by Defendants Trans Union LLC (Doc. 52), Landsafe Credit

Inc. (Doc. 55), and Kroll Factual Data Inc. (Doc. 57). Plaintiff failed to file responses within

the time period provided in the civil rules of procedure, and on June 14, 2010, the Court

ordered Plaintiff to file responses to the motions no later than July 2, 2010. Doc. 67.

Plaintiff failed to file responses by July 2, 2010.1

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 73 Filed 07/19/10 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

- 2 -

The Court advised Plaintiff that even though he is proceeding pro se, he is still

required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. Doc. 67 at 2. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that if he did not file

responses to the motions by the July 2, 2010 deadline, the Court would summarily grant the

motions pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i). Id. Plaintiff was further warned that if he failed to

prosecute this action, or if he failed to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court

may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Id. (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995)).

Because Plaintiff has failed to file responses to the motions, the Court will grant them

summarily (Doc. 52, 55, 57). The claims against Defendants Trans Union LLC, Landsafe

Credit Inc., and Kroll Factual Data Inc. are dismissed with prejudice.

The Court will also dismiss the claims against these Defendants with prejudice under

Rule 41(b). Before dismissing claims for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the

rules or an order, the Court must weigh 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 sanctions. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (citing Henderson

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The first two factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff filed this suit more than nine months

ago. Doc. 1-1 at 5-34. He was served with the motions to dismiss no later than mid-June.

Doc. 67. He has been provided with sufficient time to respond to the motions, but has failed

to do so. Because the Court and the public have a strong interest in judicial efficiency and

the prompt resolution of litigation, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action weighs in favor

of dismissal. The third factor – risk of prejudice to Defendants – also weighs in favor of

dismissal. Defendants forced to incur expenses and defend themselves in court are

prejudiced by a plaintiff’s failure to respond to motions or to prosecute the case in a timely

and efficient manner. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. As for the fifth

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 73 Filed 07/19/10 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

- 3 -

factor, the Court notes that it warned Plaintiff that his claims would be dismissed if he did

not respond to the motions. Plaintiff nonetheless chose to disregard the motions and the

Court’s orders. Given this warning, and the fact that additional extensions of time would

likely elicit the same lack of response, the Court concludes that dismissal is warranted.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant Trans Union LLC’s motion to dismiss with prejudice (Doc. 52) is

granted.

2. Defendant Landsafe Credit Inc.’s motion to dismiss with prejudice (Doc. 55)

is granted.

3. Defendant Kroll Factual Data Inc.’s motion to dismiss with prejudice (Doc.

57) is granted.

DATED this 16th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 73 Filed 07/19/10 Page 3 of 3