Armstrong v. The Bank of New York Mellon
Filing
16
ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti adopting 12 Report and Recommendations and dismissing case. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2011)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
RONALD S ARMSTRONG,
8
) Case No. C 11-4353 SC
)
) ORDER DISMISSING CASE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
9
v.
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
11
Defendant.
12
13
14
On September 1, 2011, Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon
15
("Defendant") removed this action from Sonoma County Superior
16
Court.
17
Defendant moved to dismiss and strike the Complaint, with a noticed
18
hearing date of October 20, 2011.
19
Plaintiff Ronald S Armstrong ("Plaintiff") failed to file an
20
opposition pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.
21
to comply with the magistrate judge’s Order to either consent or
22
decline magistrate jurisdiction by September 22, 2011.
23
("Order to File Consent/Declination").
24
ECF No. 1 ("Not. Of Removal").
On September 8, 2011,
ECF Nos. 5 ("MTD"), 6 ("MTS").
Plaintiff also failed
ECF No. 9
On September 28, 2011, the magistrate judge vacated the
25
October 20, 2011 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and
26
Motion to Strike and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case
27
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to
28
comply with court deadlines.
ECF No. 11 ("Order to Show Cause").
1
The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to file a declaration by
2
October 6, 2011.
3
2011, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss the
4
case based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and repeated failure
5
to comply with a court order.
6
Recommendation").
7
Recommendation, but did file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on
8
October 17, 2011.
Id.
Plaintiff failed to do so.
On October 14,
ECF No. 14 ("Report and
Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and
ECF No. 15 ("FAC").
United States District Court
Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
10
For the Northern District of California
9
"[i]f the Plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply . . . with a court
11
order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim
12
against it."
13
district court also has the inherent power to dismiss a case on its
14
own motion.
15
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).
16
determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a
17
court order the district court must weigh five factors including:
18
(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
19
(2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
20
prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
21
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of
22
less drastic alternatives.
23
quotations omitted).
24
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Pursuant to Rule 41, a
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962);
"In
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (citations and
In the instant action, the first two Ferdik factors weigh in
25
favor of dismissal.
Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to
26
Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss, failed to comply with a
27
court order and deadlines, failed to respond to the Order to Show
28
Cause, and, other than filing its FAC, has made no appearance in
2
1
this matter since Defendant removed the Complaint.
The Court has
2
the power to manage its docket without being subject to such
3
vexatious noncompliance of litigants.
4
factor, Plaintiff's tactics have resulted in prejudice to
5
Defendant.
6
Motion to Dismiss and then, after pertinent deadlines had expired,
7
filed a FAC to which Defendants would need to respond.
8
fourth factor, Plaintiff's refusal to prosecute the case and comply
9
with court orders renders a disposition of the case on the merits
With respect to the third
Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to Defendant's
As to the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
unlikely.
11
magistrate judge has already given Plaintiff an opportunity to show
12
cause as to why the case should not be dismissed.
13
to respond to the Order.
14
of dismissal.
15
16
As to the availability of less drastic measures, the
Plaintiff failed
Thus, the Ferdik factors weigh in favor
For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff Ronald S
Armstrong's action.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
Dated: October 28, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?