Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02363/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02363-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
Defendant
ECI Financial Corp.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ECI Financial Corp., a

California corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

American Home Mortgage

Servicing, Inc., a Delaware

Corporation, and Does 1-50,

inclusive, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:10-cv-02363-GEB-GGH

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

An order issued on December 23, 2010, granting Defendant’s

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) dismissal motion. (ECF

No. 10.) The December 23, 2010 Order granted Plaintiff ten (10) days to

file a First Amended Complaint and warned Plaintiff that the action “may

be dismissed with prejudice under [Rule] 41(b) if Plaintiff fails to

file an amended complaint within the prescribed time period.” Id. at

8:26-9:3. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the

prescribed time period. Therefore, this action will be dismissed with

prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failing to comply with a court order. 

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets

and may impose sanctions, including dismissal, in the exercise of that

discretion.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 2:10-cv-02363-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 01/06/11 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

However, since “dismissal is a harsh penalty, it should be imposed as a

sanction only in extreme circumstances.” Id. 

“Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails to

amend his complaint after the district judge dismisses the complaint

with leave to amend, the dismissal is typically considered a dismissal

for failing to comply with a court order rather than for failing to

prosecute the claim.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th

Cir. 1999). To dismiss a case as a sanction, “the district 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.” Id. at 990 (quotation and citations omitted).

The first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal in

this case because Plaintiff’s non-compliance with above referenced order

has impaired the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation and undermines the Court’s ability to manage its docket. See

Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”);

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating “[i]t

is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject

to routine noncompliance of litigants”).

The third factor concerning the risk of prejudice to Defendant

considers the strength of a plaintiff’s excuse for non-compliance. See

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (stating that “the risk of prejudice [is

related] to the plaintiff’s reason for defaulting”). Since Plaintiff has

provided no reason for its non-compliance, the third factor also favors

dismissal.

Case 2:10-cv-02363-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 01/06/11 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

The fourth factor concerning the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits, weighs against dismissal of

Plaintiff’s case. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors

disposition of cases on the merits”).

The fifth factor concerning whether the Court has considered

less drastic sanctions, also weighs in favor of dismissal since

Plaintiff failed to amend its complaint within the prescribed time

period despite the warning that the action could be dismissed with

prejudice as a result. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

Cir. 1992) (stating “a district court’s warning to a party that his

failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy

the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement”).

The balance of the factors strongly favors dismissal of this

action with prejudice. Therefore, the doe defendants are dismissed, and

this action is dismissed with prejudice. Judgment shall be entered in

favor of Defendant.

Dated: January 5, 2011

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-02363-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 01/06/11 Page 3 of 3