In re: Salma H. Agha
ORDER WITHDRAWING Reference and Dismissing Case for Failure to Abide by Court Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/7/17. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SALMA H. AGHA,
JEFFREY M. VETTER, OFFICE OF THE
U.S. TRUSTEE, and AUGUST B.
ORDER WITHDRAWING REFERENCE
AND DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO
ABIDE BY COURT ORDER
(Doc. Nos. 2, 3)
On August 1, 2017, the court ordered debtor to show cause by September 1, 2017 why the
reference to the United States Bankruptcy Court should not be withdrawn for Case Number 10-
16183, and why the action should not be transferred to this court and dismissed. (Doc. No. 2.)1
The court specifically warned debtor that a failure to respond to the order to show cause would
result in reference being withdrawn and the case being dismissed. (Id. at 2.) Debtor has not
responded to the order to show cause. Reference of this matter to the bankruptcy court is
withdrawn. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).
Further, a district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case where a party has refused
to comply with the court’s orders. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991); Yourish v.
An amended order was issued on August 2, 2017. (Doc. No. 3.)
California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260
(9th Cir. 1992). In order to dismiss the case, “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.’” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990
(quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)).
Here, the public certainly has an interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation,
since the initial bankruptcy proceeding to which this dispute pertains began in 2010. (Doc. No. 1
at 3.) The court also has a clear need to manage its docket by dismissing cases that are not being
pursued, as this court has one of the heaviest caseloads in the country. There is no risk of
prejudice to any other parties here, and it appears that the underlying bankruptcy matter has
already been disposed of on its merits. (Id. at 1–3.) Finally, the court is unaware of less drastic
alternatives available to it when a party fails to timely respond to an order to show cause in which
the party is specifically warning that such a failure will result in dismissal.
For these reasons, this case is hereby dismissed, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to
terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 7, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?