Hielo v. Bank of America Servicing Company et al

Filing 5

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, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/23/2014. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAHIR B. HELO,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

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

17
18

Plaintiff Kahir Helo initiated this action by filing complaint against Bank of America Servicing

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

26

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

27

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

28

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions
1

1

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

2

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

3

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

4

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

5

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

6

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

7

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

8
9
10

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.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 23, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2