Carrington, et al. v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.
Filing
11
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/26/2018. Referred to Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
CHERYL CARRINGTON and JAMES
CARRINGTON,
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
16
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:18-cv-0203 -LJO-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
17
Cheryl Carrington and James Carrington contend the defendants are liable for unlawful actions
18
19
taken related to a foreclosure. However, after the Court relieved their counsel from their
20
representation, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to indicate whether they intended to proceed with this
21
action. (Doc. 10) Plaintiffs failed to comply and failed to take any other action to prosecute the matter.
22
Accordingly, the Court recommends that Plaintiffs’ complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.
23
I.
24
Relevant Background
Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint in Kern County Superior Court Case No.
25
BCV-18-100029 on January 5, 2018. (Doc. 1-1 at 2) Defendant Wells Fargo filed a Notice of Removal
26
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) and 1332 on February 8, 2018, thereby initiating the matter in this
27
Court. (Doc. 1)
28
On February 14, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Docs. 4, 8) Plaintiffs filed an
1
1
opposition to the motion on March 9, 2018. (Doc. 9) The same date, Mr. Artinian filed the motion to
2
withdraw as counsel. (Doc. 6) The Court held at hearing on the motion to withdraw on April 6, 2018.
3
Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion either in writing or at the hearing. (See Doc. 10 at 3)
On April 6, 2018, the Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw on April 6, 2018. (Doc. 10)
4
5
At that time, the Court ordered: “Plaintiffs SHALL notify the Court in writing of their intent to
6
proceed with this action no later than April 20, 2018.” (Id. at 3, emphasis in original) In addition, the
7
Court advised Plaintiffs that “failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the
8
action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.” (Id., emphasis omitted). To date, Plaintiffs have not
9
responded to the Court’s order.
10
II.
Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
11
12
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
13
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent
14
power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including
15
dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
16
1986). A court may dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a
17
court order. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure
18
to comply with an order to file an amended complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128,
19
130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779
20
F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
21
III.
Discussion and Analysis
To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court
22
23
order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
24
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
25
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability
26
of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;
27
Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.
28
///
2
Public interest and the Court’s docket
1
A.
2
In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s
3
interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d
4
983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors
5
dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in
6
managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will
7
not hold, this case in abeyance based upon Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s order and
8
failure to take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co.,
9
942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (a plaintiff has the burden “to move toward… disposition at a
10
reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics”). Accordingly, these factors weigh in
11
favor of dismissal of the action.
12
B.
Prejudice to Defendants
13
To determine whether the defendant suffers prejudice, the Court must “examine whether the
14
plaintiff’s actions impair the … ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of
15
the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 F.2d 611, 618 (9th
16
Cir. 1985)). Significantly, a presumption of prejudiced arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays the
17
prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, Plaintiffs
18
have not taken any action to further prosecuting the action, despite being ordered by the Court to do so.
19
Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
20
C.
21
The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering
22
the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States v. Nat’l Medical
23
Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). However, a court’s warning to a party that the
24
failure to obey could result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. See
25
Malone, 833 F.2d at 133; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “a plaintiff can
26
hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to willful violation of a pretrial order.”
27
Malone, 833 F.2d at 133.
28
Consideration of less drastic sanctions
The Court warned Plaintiffs that they were obligated to file a notice whether they intended to
3
1
proceed in this action and that their “failure to comply with this order will result in a
2
recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.” (Doc. 10 at 3,
3
emphasis in original) Importantly, the Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be
4
dismissed for failure to comply to satisfy the requirements of Rule 41. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; see
5
also Titus v. Mercedes Benz of North America, 695 F.2d 746, 749 n.6 (3rd Cir. 1982) (identifying a
6
“warning” as an alternative sanction). Accordingly, the warning to Plaintiffs satisfied the requirement
7
that the Court consider lesser sanctions, and this factor weighs in favor of dismissal of the action. See
8
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; Titus, 695 F.2d at 749 n.6.
D.
9
Public policy
Given Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with the Court’s order,
10
11
the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of
12
dismissal. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public policy favoring
13
disposition of cases on their merits . . . weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the
14
other four factors”).
15
IV.
Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court’s order dated April 6, 2018 (Doc. 10) and thereby
16
17
Findings and Recommendations
indicated they have abandoned the litigation. Based upon the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS:
18
1.
This action be DISMISSED without prejudice;
19
2.
Any remaining motions be terminated as MOOT; and
20
3.
The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close the action.
21
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
22
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
23
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen
24
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written
25
objections. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
26
Recommendations.”
27
///
28
///
4
1
Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
2
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v.
3
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 26, 2018
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?