Agha v. United States of America, et al

Filing 140

ORDER DISMISSING remaining Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/2015. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SALMA H. AGHA-KHAN,

12
13
14

No. 1:15-CV-00042-DAD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING
DEFENDANTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al.,,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Agha-Khan filed the present action in United States Bankruptcy Court for the

18

Eastern District of California on December 31, 2014 against roughly 58 named defendants and

19

100 Doe defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) The case was subsequently reassigned to the District Court

20

for all further proceedings. (Doc. No. 4.) The core allegation of the complaint is that the

21

defendants acted improperly before, during, and after Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case filed

22

in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. BK 10-161183.

23

(Doc. No. 1.) On September 29, 2015, the previously assigned District Judge granted seven

24

motions to dismiss filed by various defendants and consequently dismissed with prejudice 51

25

defendants from the case. (Doc. No. 134.) Only named defendants John Thomas Dzialo, the Law

26

Offices of John Thomas Dzialo, Stuart Spencer, Scott Hayward, Syed Saghir, Candice Davis, and

27

Jason Sadural (“the remaining defendants”) remained following the September 29, 2015 dismissal

28

order. (Id.)
1

1

On November 3, 2015, the previously assigned District Judge issued an order to show

2

cause, due within 30 days, why the remaining defendants should not be dismissed from this action

3

for a failure to properly serve them. (Doc. No. 137.) The Court advised that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to

4

respond to this order or fails to show cause, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Defendants

5

John Thomas Dzialo, the Law Offices of John Thomas Dzialo, Stuart Spencer, Scott Hayward,

6

Syed Saghir, Candice Davis, and Jason Sadural.” (Id.) Over 30 days have passed since the

7

issuance of the Order to Show Cause and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the order or otherwise

8

contact the Court.

9

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure

10

to obey a court order. See e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992)

11

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). In

12

determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey a court order

13

the court must consider several factors, including: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious

14

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

15

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

16

availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); Ferdik,

17

963 F.2d at 1260–61.

18

At this time, the Court has no choice but to dismiss this action as to the remaining

19

defendants. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the order to show cause, despite being provided

20

more than ample time to do so. There is still nothing before the Court to suggest that the

21

remaining defendants were ever properly served. Plaintiff was further warned that her failure to

22

timely respond to the order to show cause would result in the dismissal of her complaint against

23

the remaining defendants. The Court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in which a

24

plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case and fails to comply with the Court’s orders. The

25

public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs in favor of dismissal of such

26

cases so that the Court’s limited resources may be spent on cases in which the litigant is actually

27

proceeding. Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits also has little or no weight

28

in actions where the plaintiff lacks enough of an interest to respond to court orders. Less drastic
2

1

sanctions have been considered, but given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the order to show

2

cause, the Court orders that the remaining defendants be dismissed and that this case closed.

3

For the reasons set forth above,

4

1) Defendants John Thomas Dzialo, the Law Offices of John Thomas Dzialo, Stuart

5

Spencer, Scott Hayward, Syed Saghir, Candice Davis, and Jason Sadural are dismissed

6

from this action; and

7

2) The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

December 10, 2015
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3