In re: Salma H. Agha

Filing 4

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SALMA H. AGHA, 12 Debtor, 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-00389-DAD v. JEFFREY M. VETTER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE, and AUGUST B. LANDIS, 16 ORDER WITHDRAWING REFERENCE AND DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO ABIDE BY COURT ORDER (Doc. Nos. 2, 3) Trustees. 17 On August 1, 2017, the court ordered debtor to show cause by September 1, 2017 why the 18 19 reference to the United States Bankruptcy Court should not be withdrawn for Case Number 10- 20 16183, and why the action should not be transferred to this court and dismissed. (Doc. No. 2.)1 21 The court specifically warned debtor that a failure to respond to the order to show cause would 22 result in reference being withdrawn and the case being dismissed. (Id. at 2.) Debtor has not 23 responded to the order to show cause. Reference of this matter to the bankruptcy court is 24 withdrawn. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). 25 Further, a district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case where a party has refused 26 to comply with the court’s orders. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991); Yourish v. 27 28 1 An amended order was issued on August 2, 2017. (Doc. No. 3.) 1 1 California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 2 (9th Cir. 1992). In order to dismiss the case, “the district court must consider five factors: ‘(1) the 3 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 4 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 5 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 6 (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)). 7 Here, the public certainly has an interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation, 8 since the initial bankruptcy proceeding to which this dispute pertains began in 2010. (Doc. No. 1 9 at 3.) The court also has a clear need to manage its docket by dismissing cases that are not being 10 pursued, as this court has one of the heaviest caseloads in the country. There is no risk of 11 prejudice to any other parties here, and it appears that the underlying bankruptcy matter has 12 already been disposed of on its merits. (Id. at 1–3.) Finally, the court is unaware of less drastic 13 alternatives available to it when a party fails to timely respond to an order to show cause in which 14 the party is specifically warning that such a failure will result in dismissal. 15 For these reasons, this case is hereby dismissed, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to 16 terminate this action. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: September 7, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?