Duncan et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/8/15 RECOMMENDING that that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 4(m) and Local Rules 110 and 183(a). Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

T. DUNCAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-00340-TLN-AC
Plaintiff,

v.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. On February 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a

18

complaint against Defendants Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Corp. and Recon Trust,

19

MERS, MERSCORP, and Does 1–100. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint includes claims for

20

violation of the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12650. Id. On

21

February 17, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause within 28 days why this action

22

should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The court explained that the

23

complaint appeared to state claims arising exclusively under state law. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has yet

24

to respond to the court’s order.

25

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action

26

for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to

27

comply with the court’s local rules, or failure to comply with the court’s orders. See, e.g.,

28

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte
1

1

to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest

2

Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that courts may dismiss an action pursuant

3

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply

4

with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260

5

(9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss

6

an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,

7

642–43 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court’s dismissal of case for failure to prosecute when

8

habeas petitioner failed to file a first amended petition). This court’s Local Rules are in accord.

9

See E.D. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any

10

order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized

11

by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”); E.D. Local Rule 183(a) (providing

12

that a pro se party’s failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court's Local

13

Rules, and other applicable law may support, among other things, dismissal of that party’s

14

action).

15

A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to

16

prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local

17

rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the court must consider:

18
19
20

(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
the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases
on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.

21

Id. at 1260–61; accord Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642–43; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th

22

Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that

23

“[t]hese factors are not a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, but a

24

way for a district judge to think about what to do.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods.

25

Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

26

Although involuntary dismissal can be a harsh remedy, on balance the five relevant

27

factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action. The first two factors strongly support dismissal

28

of this action. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s order to show cause strongly suggests
2

1

that he has abandoned this action or is not interested in seriously prosecuting it. See, e.g.,

2

Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in

3

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). Any further time spent by the

4

court on this case, which plaintiff has demonstrated a lack of any serious intention to pursue, will

5

consume scarce judicial resources and take away from other active cases. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

6

1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent power to manage their dockets without being

7

subject to noncompliant litigants).

8

In addition, the third factor, which considers prejudice to a defendant, should be given

9

some weight. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Although the court’s docket does not reflect that a

10

complaint has been served upon defendants, defendants remain named in a lawsuit. It is difficult

11

to quantify the prejudice suffered by defendants here; however, it is enough that defendants have

12

been named in a lawsuit that plaintiff has effectively abandoned. At a minimum, defendants have

13

been prevented from attempting to resolve this case on the merits by plaintiff’s unreasonable

14

delay in prosecuting this action. Unreasonable delay is presumed to be prejudicial. See, e.g., In

15

re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d at 1227.

16

The fifth factor, which considers the availability of less drastic measures, also supports

17

dismissal of this action. The court has already pursued remedies that are less drastic than a

18

recommendation of dismissal, including providing plaintiff with the opportunity to respond to the

19

court’s apparent lack of jurisdiction. See Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th Cir.

20

1987) (“[E]xplicit discussion of alternatives is unnecessary if the district court actually tries

21

alternatives before employing the ultimate sanction of dismissal.”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819

22

(1988). Having failed to receive a response from plaintiff, the court finds no suitable alternative

23

to a recommendation for dismissal of this action.

24

The court also recognizes the importance of giving due weight to the fourth factor, which

25

addresses the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits. However, for the reasons

26

set forth above, factors one, two, three, and five strongly support a recommendation of dismissal

27

of this action, and factor four does not materially counsel otherwise. Dismissal is proper “where

28

at least four factors support dismissal or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.”
3

1

Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations and quotation marks

2

omitted). Under the circumstances of this case, the other relevant factors outweigh the general

3

public policy favoring disposition of actions on their merits. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with

5

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 4(m) and Local Rules 110 and

6

183(a).

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

8

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)

9

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

10

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also E.D.

11

Local Rule 304(b). Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

12

Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court

13

and served on all parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. E.D. Local Rule

14

304(d). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

15

District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,

16

951 F.2d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

DATED: April 8, 2015

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4