Webb v. Wachovia Mortgage et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/15/2012 DISMISSING CASE for lack of prosecution. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
FRANCIES WEBB,
10
NO. CIV. S-11-0516 LKK/GGH
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
O R D E R

13
14

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, a
division of WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., et al.,

15
Defendants.
16

/

17

This court previously granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to

18

withdraw. In counsel’s motion to withdraw, filed on September 28,

19

2011, counsel stated that he had attempted to contact plaintiff by

20

telephone and letter, and that plaintiff had not responded.

21

On November 4, 2011, this court issued an order granting

22

plaintiff one hundred twenty (120) days to find replacement counsel

23

and notify the court of the name of her new counsel, or if she

24

elects to proceed without counsel. ECF No. 36. The order cautioned

25

plaintiff that failure to notify the court may result in dismissal

26

of this case for lack of prosecution. Id. The 120 days expired on
1

1

March 3, 2012, and plaintiff has not notified the court of her new

2

counsel or election to proceed without counsel.

3

A district court may dismiss an action for plaintiff’s failure

4

to prosecute or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

5

or with a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). District courts must

6

“weigh several factors in determining whether to dismiss this case

7

for lack of prosecution: (1) the public's interest in expeditious

8

resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its

9

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public

10

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the

11

availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779

12

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986).

13

Defendant Wachovia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in

14

March 2011. The court has already delayed ruling on the motion

15

several times due to plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition or

16

statement

17

monetarily sanctioned in this matter, and plaintiff has previously

18

been cautioned that the case could be dismissed as s sanction for

19

failure to comply with the Local Rules. The court finds that the

20

following factors weigh in favor of dismissing this case: the

21

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the

22

court’s need to manage its docket, and the availability of less

23

drastic sanctions.

of

non-opposition.

Plaintiff’s

counsel

was

already

Accordingly, plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice

24
25

for lack of prosecution.

26

////
2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED:

March 15, 2012.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3