Davenport v. Litton Loan Servicing LP et al

Filing 83

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 7/14/2011 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/30/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2011)

*E-Filed 6/30/11*

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12

KAROL DAVENPORT,

13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. C 10-0679 RS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, et al.,

16
17
18

Defendants.
____________________________________/
This Court dismissed those claims brought by plaintiff Karol Davenport against defendants

19

Litton Loan and U.S. Bank on June 03, 2011. That Order afforded Davenport leave to amend those

20

claims with conditions: “Davenport may amend her SAC, but only if she can in good faith allege

21

facts plausibly suggestive of a viable claim for relief. If she cannot do so, she shall file a Third

22

Amended Complaint that contains only those claims lodged against the continuing defendants.” In

23

other words, even if Davenport planned to drop those claims brought against Litton and U.S. Bank,

24

the Order requested a streamlined complaint. The Order then stated that any amendment must be

25

filed “within twenty days” of the Order’s issuance. That deadline has passed

26

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for failure to

27

prosecute. In determining whether a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case,

28

the court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
NO. C 10-0679 RS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)

2

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

3

sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986).

4

Generally speaking, however, the district court must first warn the plaintiff that the case is in

5

danger of being dismissed for failure to prosecute and give the plaintiff an opportunity to respond.

6

See, e.g., Palma v. Dent, No. C 06-6151 PJH, 2007 WL 2023517, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2007).

7

Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear for a show cause hearing on July 14, 2011, at 1:30

8

p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

9

Francisco, California. At that hearing, plaintiff must explain why the case should not be dismissed
with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Should Davenport file either the TAC or a notice of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

dismissal, the hearing date shall be vacated.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 6/30/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
NO. C 10-0679 RS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

28

2