Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01522/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01522-1/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 complaint against Bank of America Servicing 

Company and Nation Star Mortgage, asserting the companies are liable for misrepresentation and for 

utilizing foreclosure procedures that violated of California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights. (Doc. 1.) On 

November 25, 2014, the Court determined Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims 

for relief, and dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an 

amended complaint within twenty-one days of the date of service, or no later than December 19, 2014. 

(Id. at 4). To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 

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.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 

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

KAHIR B. HELO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA SERVICING 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01522-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 2
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

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 with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 

an action or failure to obey a court order, 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); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01522-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 2