Williams v. Duke Partners II, LLC et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to Respond to Order to Show Cause, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/30/17. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GANEEVA WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:17-cv-00783-DAD-MJS

Plaintiff,
v.
DUKE PARTNERS II, LLC and
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE
TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE
(Doc. No. 3)

Defendants.
On June 14, 2017, this court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be

18

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 4.) The order required that plaintiff

19

respond in writing within seven days, and warned her that any failure to respond would result in

20

dismissal without leave to amend. (Id.) More than seven days have passed since the order was

21

issued, and no response has been filed.

22

Prior to dismissing a claim for failure to comply with a court order, the court must weigh

23

these factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

24

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of

25

less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.”

26

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); see also In re Phenylpropanolamine

27

Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Bautista v. Los Angeles Cty., 216 F.3d

28

837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
1

1

Here, while this case has not been pending long, the public has a great interest in the

2

expeditious resolution of this and all litigation heard here, as it has one of the busiest dockets in

3

the country. See Ellis v. Checkmate Staffing, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-00129-JAM-CKD, 2015 WL

4

351441, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015). For similar reasons, the court has a strong need to

5

control its docket. There is little risk of prejudice to the defendants in this action, who have not

6

yet appeared in this matter, given the high likelihood this court does not have subject matter

7

jurisdiction over the dispute in any event. (See Doc. No. 4.) There are no less drastic alternatives

8

available to the court when faced with a litigant who simply fails to respond to court orders.

9

Finally, while public policy may favor disposing of cases on the merits, it is highly unlikely this

10

court would be able to reach the actual dispute—whether defendants engaged in “dual tracking”

11

in violation of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights—given that it appears to lack subject

12

matter jurisdiction.

13

Therefore, considering the factors noted above and that the deadline to respond to the

14

court’s order to show cause has passed without response from the plaintiff, the court dismisses

15

this case without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is

16

denied as having been rendered moot by this order. Finally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to

17

close this case.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

June 30, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2