Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01522/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01522-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America Servicing Company
Defendant
Kahir B. Helo
Plaintiff
Nation Star Mortgage
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Kahir Helo initiated this action by filing a complaint against Bank of America 

Servicing Company and Nation Star Mortgage on September 29, 2014, asserting the companies are 

liable for misrepresentation and for utilizing foreclosure procedures that violated of California’s 

Homeowner Bill of Rights. (Doc. 1.) Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders 

and failed prosecute this action, the Court recommends the action be DISMISSED.

I. Procedural History

On November 25, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint for cognizable claims pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The Court found Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims, 

and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 

complaint within twenty-one days of the date of service, and was warned that if he failed to comply 

with the order, “the action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.” (Id. at 8, emphasis 

KAHIR B. HELO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA SERVICING 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01522 - --- - JLT

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ASSIGN A 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO 

OBEY THE COURT’S ORDERS

Case 1:14-cv-01522-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 01/13/15 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

omitted.) However, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as ordered by the Court. 

On December 23, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff “to show cause within 14 days of the date of 

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure 

comply with the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file an amended complaint.” (Doc. 5 at 2.) In 

addition, the Court warned Plaintiff that the case may be dismissed for the failure to comply with the 

Court’s order. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with or respond to the Court’s orders.

II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 

party to comply 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.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent 

power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including 

dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986). A court may dismiss an action based upon a party’s failure to obey a court order, failure to 

prosecute an action, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 

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

comply with a court order).

III. Discussion and Analysis

To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, 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; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 

Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 

191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 

favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 

Case 1:14-cv-01522-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 01/13/15 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

managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). The risk of prejudice to the 

defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence 

of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 

Cir. 1976). Notably, Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence the defendant has been served with this 

action, in spite of the necessity of service before the case may proceed.

In the Screening Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the order, 

“the action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.” (Doc. 4 at 8, emphasis in original.) 

In addition, in the Order to Show Cause, the Court warned Plaintiff that it “may dismiss an action with 

prejudice, based upon a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order . . .” 

(Doc. 5 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warnings that dismissal would result from noncompliance 

with the Court’s orders, and the failure to prosecute the action. The Court’s warnings to Plaintiff that

failure to comply with the orders would result in dismissal satisfy the requirement that the Court 

consider less drastic measures. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Given these 

facts, the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of 

dismissal.

IV. Order

Good cause appearing, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District 

Judge to this action.

V. Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the Court’s orders dated 

November 25, 2014 (Doc. 4) and December 23, 2014 (Doc. 5). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Case 1:14-cv-01522-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 01/13/15 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

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01522-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 01/13/15 Page 4 of 4