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)

Download PDF
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

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?