Walker v. Suntrust Mortgage Inc

Filing 12

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/25/13 RECOMMENDING that defendant's 5 motion to dismiss be denied as moot; plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of prosecution; and this case be closed. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Matter referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIE WALKER,

12
13
14
15

No. 13-cv-0890 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC.,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Willie Walker is proceeding in this action pro se. The action has

18

therefore been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) for all purposes

19

encompassed by that rule.

20

This matter came before the court on June 28, 2013, for hearing of defendant’s

21

motion to dismiss. John Calvagna, Esq. appeared telephonically for the defendant. Despite being

22

served with notice of the motion plaintiff did not file written opposition or a statement of non-

23

opposition to the motion to dismiss and did not appear at the hearing of the motion, nor did

24

anyone appear on her behalf.

25

Accordingly, in an order filed July 5, 2013, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to

26

show cause in writing within fourteen days as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack

27

of prosecution. (Doc. No. 11 at 2.) Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file a written response

28

to that order would result in the undersigned recommending that this matter be dismissed. (Id.)
1

1

Nonetheless, the time for plaintiff to respond has expired and plaintiff has not responded to the

2

court’s order in any way.

3

ANALYSIS

4

The factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of

5

prosecution are as follows: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

6

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy

7

favoring disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Hernandez v.

8

City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260

9

(9th Cir. 1992); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal is a harsh penalty

10

that should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 398; Ferdik, 963

11

F.2d at 1260.

12

Under the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

13

Eastern District of California, opposition, if any, to the granting of a motion “shall be in writing

14

and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued)

15

hearing date.” Local Rule 230(c). “No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a

16

motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Id.

17

Failure to appear at the hearing of a properly noticed motion may, in the discretion of the court,

18

be deemed withdrawal of any written opposition that was timely filed, or may result in sanctions.

19

Local Rule 230(i).

20

Failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court “may

21

be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

22

within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or

23

herself without an attorney is nonetheless bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

24

Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). A party’s failure to comply with

25

applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the

26

Local Rules. Id.

27
28

Here, plaintiff has failed to file a timely response to defendant’s motion to dismiss
and failed to appear at the hearing of the properly noticed motion, in violation of multiple
2

1

provisions of Local Rule 230. The court issued an order to show cause that provided plaintiff

2

with yet another opportunity to show good cause for her failure to respond to defendant’s motion

3

but plaintiff failed to respond in any way. The order to show cause warned plaintiff that failure to

4

file a written response to the order to show cause would result in a recommendation that this

5

matter be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s lack of prosecution of this case renders the imposition of monetary

6
7

sanctions futile, and the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to

8

manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all support the sanction of dismissal.

9

Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against dismissal. However,

10

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action in any way makes disposition on the merits an

11

impossibility. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed due to

12

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute as well as her failure to comply with the court’s orders. See FED.

13

R. CIV. P. 41(b).

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

15

1. Defendant’s May 13, 2013 motion to dismiss (Doc. No 5) be denied as moot;

16

2. Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of prosecution, as

17

evidenced by plaintiff’s failure to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to

18

dismiss filed on behalf of the defendant, failure to appear at the hearing of the motion to dismiss,

19

and failure to file a response to the order to show cause; and

20

3. This case be closed.

21

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

22

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

23

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

24

file written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled

25

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to objections

26

shall be filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that

27

/////

28

/////
3

1

failure to file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the

2

right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Dated: July 25, 2013

4
5
6
7
8

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\walker0890.dlop.f&rs.docx

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4