AOM Group, LLC et al v. Loancity, et al

Filing 19

ORDER dismissing without prejudice defendants CitiMortgage Incorporated and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Directing the Clerk to terminate this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/20/10. (DMT)

Download PDF
AOM Group, LLC et al v. Loancity, et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA AOM Group, LLC, Trustee of Eagle Eye) Land Trust, Felipe Gonzalez, Beneficiary,) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Loancity; Prescott Title; Citimortgage,) Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration) Systems, Inc.; Michael A. Bosco, Jr.;) Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Its) Assignees and/or Successors-in-Interest,) ) and Does 1-40, ) ) Defendants. ) No. CV-10-00088-PHX-GMS ORDER On June 23, 2010, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 18) and directed Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants CitiMortgage and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation should not be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to do so. The Ninth Circuit has developed "a five-part `test' to determine whether a dismissal sanction is just: `(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.'" Valley Engineers, Inc. v. Electric Engineering Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). "[W]here a court order is 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 violated, factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4 cuts against case dispositive sanctions, so 3 and 5 . . . are decisive." Valley Engineers, 158 F.3d at 1057. Factor 5 "involves consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly discussed alternative sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of dismissal." Id. Considering this five-factor test, the Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate in this case. The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court's need to manage its docket require action when a plaintiff refuses to prosecute a case. In addition, Defendants will be subject to the prejudice of increasing and continuing litigation expenses if dismissal is not entered. Finally, the Court has imposed the less drastic of dismissal without prejudice in the event Plaintiff desires to reassert any claims it believes to be meritorious. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Dismissing without prejudice Defendants CitiMortgage Incorporated and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. 2. Directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this action. DATED this 20th day of July, 2010. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?