Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01039/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01039-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barclays Capital Mortgage
Defendant
Homeq
Defendant
Old Republic Management Services
Defendant
Maria P. Ramirez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA P. RAMIERZ, CASE NO. CV F 10-1039 LJO SKO

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO DISMISS REMAINING

DEFENDANTS

vs. (Doc. 4.)

BARCLAYS CAPITAL

MORTGAGE, et al.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

This Court’s June 28, 2010 order(“June 28 order”) dismissed with prejudice defendant Barclays

Capital Real Estate, Inc. dba HomEq Servicing and required plaintiff Maria P. Ramirez (“Ms. Ramirez”)

no later than July 8, 2010, to file papers to show cause why this Court should not dismiss this action

against remaining defendant Old Republic Management Services. The June 28 order “ADMONISHES

Ms. Ramirez that this Court will dismiss this action against defendant Old Republic Management

Services if Ms. Ramirez fails to comply with this order and fails to file timely papers to show cause

why this Court should not dismiss this action against defendant Old Republic Management

Services.” (Bold in original.) Ms. Ramirez failed to file papers to show cause why this Court should

1

Case 1:10-cv-01039-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 07/09/10 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

not dismiss defendant Old Republic Management Services to disobey the June 28 order. 

DISCUSSION

Failure To Comply With Orders

This Court’s Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to complywith these

[Local] Rules or 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.” District courts have inherent power to control

their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, theymayimpose sanctions including, where appropriate

. . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or local rules. See, e.g.,

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule);

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to complywith an order

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal

for failure to complywith local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone

v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution

and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining whetherto dismiss an action for failure to complywith a court order or local rules

or for lack of prosecution, a court must consider several 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 defendant;

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-1261; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

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

in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal as Ms. Ramirez indicates a lack of interest to further

litigate or prosecute this action. The third factor -- risk of prejudice to defendant -- also weighs in favor

of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in

prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor --

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor

2

Case 1:10-cv-01039-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 07/09/10 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

of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s

order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d

at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The June 28 order

“ADMONISHES Ms. Ramirez that this Court will dismiss this action against defendant Old

Republic Management Services if Ms. Ramirez fails to comply with this order and fails to file

timely papers to show cause why this Court should not dismiss this action against defendant Old

Republic Management Services.” (Bold in original.) Ms. Ramirez ignored the June 28 order and

received adequate warning that dismissal will result from disobedience of this Court’s order and failure

to prosecute this action. Quite simply, Ms. Ramirez and her counsel have failed to comply with this

Court’s order and to meaningfully and intelligently respond.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DISMISSES without prejudice this action against

defendant Old Republic Management Services and DIRECTS the clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-01039-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 3