Julio C. Castillo v. Bank of America N.A. et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge A. Howard Matz, Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (se)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JULIO C. CASTILLO,

12
13
14

Plaintiff(s),
v.
BANK OF AMERICA N.A, et al.,

15

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV10-09708-AHM (PJWx)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

16
17
18

On March 17, 2011, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing, no

19

later than April 4, 2011, why the above-entitled action should not be dismissed as to

20

all remaining defendants for lack of prosecution. To date, plaintiff has not complied

21

with this order.

22

Five factors must be considered before imposing the sanction of dismissal: “(1)

23

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court's need to

24

manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy

25

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic

26

sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal is

27

warranted “where at least four factors support dismissal, . . . or where at least three

28

factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393,
1

1

399 (9th 1998). While preferred, it is not required that a district court make explicit

2

findings regarding the five factors. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,

3

990 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Court hereby finds that dismissal is warranted under the facts of this case.

4
5

Public interest in expediency and management of the Court’s docket both support

6

dismissal. The Court’s docket is very extensive and cannot be managed efficiently

7

and expeditiously if parties fail to comply with court orders. The risk of prejudice to

8

the Defendant weighs in favor of dismissal, as Plaintiff’s action has caused Defendant

9

to wait unnecessarily “in limbo” and to expend further time and money to monitor the

10

action. Less drastic sanctions are not warranted, given that Plaintiff received notice

11

of the potential of dismissal should Plaintiff fail to timely serve the summons and

12

complaint. While public policy would favor a disposition on the merits, at least four

13

of the factors (factors 1, 2, 3, and 5) support dismissal here, and thus, dismissal is

14

warranted. See Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399.
Accordingly, good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby DISMISSES this

15
16

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and

17

failure to obey an order of this Court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the

18

file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: April 22, 2011

A. HOWARD MATZ
United States District Judge

21
22

JS-6

23
24
25
26
27
28
2