Davenport v. Litton Loan Servicing LP et al

Filing 48

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 12/2/2010 01:30 PM.. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/12/10. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2010)

Davenport v. Litton Loan Servicing LP et al

Doc. 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*E-Filed 10/12/2010*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION KAROL DAVENPORT, Plaintiff, No. C 10-0679 RS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

v.

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ This Court dismissed plaintiff Karol Davenport's complaint in its entirety on July 16, 2010. In that Order, the Court granted Davenport leave to amend several of her claims for relief but set a deadline for filing a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on September 1, 2010. The Court also scheduled a Further Case Management Conference for October 14, 2010. On August 8, 2010, plaintiff's counsel moved to withdraw from the case. The Court granted this request and extended plaintiff's time to file the FAC by thirty days, so that she would have time to retain counsel. Defendant filed a Case Management Statement on October 8, 2010. In that Statement, defendant pointed out that Davenport has still not filed her FAC, even though the (extended) deadline has now passed.

NO. C 10-0679 RS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

This failure does suggest a lack of diligence in prosecuting this case. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. In determining whether a plaintiff's failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case, the court must weigh 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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Generally speaking, however, the district court must first warn the plaintiff that the case is in danger of being dismissed for failure to prosecute and give the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Palma v. Dent, No. C 06-6151 PJH, 2007 WL 2023517, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2007). The Order dismissing Davenport's Complaint did not address the prospect that failure to amend within the designated time period would result in dismissal. Accordingly, and in recognition of her pro se status, plaintiff's action will not be dismissed with prejudice at this juncture. Instead, the parties are directed to appear for a show cause hearing on December 2, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At that hearing, plaintiff must explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's time to file any FAC shall be extended until the date of the hearing. The Case Management Conference scheduled for October 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. and all other scheduled pretrial hearing dates are vacated.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/12/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NO. C 10-0679 RS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Karol Davenport P.O. Box 21747 El Sobrante, CA 94820 DATED: 10/12/2010 /s/ Chambers Staff Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NO. C 10-0679 RS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who have not registered with the Court's electronic filing system.

3