In Re: Melanie Isabelle Cornell

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2014 DISMISSING CASE for failure to prosecute. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MELANIE ISABELLE CORNELL,

12
13
14

No. 2: 13-cv-0748 KJM

Appellant,
v.

ORDER

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

15

Respondent.

16
On May 8, 2014, the court ordered appellant to show cause why this action should

17
18

not be dismissed because of her failure to perfect the record on appeal. Appellant did not respond

19

to the order.

20
21
22

Before a court can dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), it must
consider the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the

23
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
24
25
26
27

sanctions. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994).
The court finds here that the Eisen factors overall support dismissal. First, the
public has an interest in expeditious resolution of litigation. Here, appellant has done nothing to

28
1

1

perfect the record on appeal even though the bankruptcy court gave her notice of the deficiencies.

2

See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in

3

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”).

4
Second, the court has an inherent interest in managing its docket. Appellant has
5
6
7

done nothing to move the appeal forward apart from filing the notice of appeal and has not even
acknowledged her obligation to act.
Third, the law presumes prejudice from unreasonable delay. In re

8
9
10
11

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations
omitted). Although there is little suggesting actual prejudice to respondent, the presumption of
harm provides at least some support for dismissal. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.

12
13
14
15

2d 648, 651 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating the “failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to
justify dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant from the
failure”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

16
17
18

Fourth, although public policy strongly favors disposition of actions on their
merits, this consideration as in Yourish “is outweighed by the other four factors which support
dismissal of this action.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 992; cf. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1454 (“Even if the

19
plaintiff has an obviously strong case, dismissal would be appropriate if the plaintiff has clearly
20
21
22

ignored his responsibilities to the court in prosecuting the action and the defendant had suffered
prejudice as a result thereof.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Fifth, in light of appellant’s failure to respond to the court’s order to show cause, it

23
24

does not appear lesser sanctions will be efficacious.

25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

2

1. The appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute; and

3

2. The case is closed.

4
5

DATED: September 30, 2014.

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3