Laygo et al v. World Savings Bank et al

Filing 11

ORDER that case be reassigned to a district court judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The March 28, 2013 show cause hearing is VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/27/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division ANDREA C. LAYGO et al, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 No. C 12-05531 LB ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WORLD SAVINGS BANK et al, 15 16 [Re: ECF No. 1] Defendants _____________________________________/ 17 Plaintiffs Andrea C. Laygo, Teresito M. Laygo, and Teresito Joselito Catalan (collectively, 18 “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants World Savings Bank and Golden West Savings 19 Association Service Company (collectively, “Defendants”) on October 26, 2012. Complaint, ECF 20 No. 1 at 1.1 This means that, pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiffs had 21 until February 23, 2013 to serve Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Order to Show Cause, 22 ECF No. 9 at 1. To date, Plaintiffs have filed no proof that Defendants have been served. See 23 generally Docket. Because Plaintiffs had not filed any proof that Defendants had been served, on 24 March 5, 2013, the court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause, by filing a written response by March 21, 25 2013, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Order to 26 Show Cause, ECF No. 9 at 1. To date, Plaintiffs have filed nothing. See generally Docket. 27 28 1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document. C 12-05531 LB ORDER Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss a claim for 3 failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the court weighs the following factors: (1) 4 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 5 (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and 6 (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 7 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th 8 Cir. 1995). These factors are a guide and “are ‘not a series of conditions precedent before the judge 9 can do anything.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 10 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 11 1998)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal, . . . . or where at least 12 For the Northern District of California A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action. Ferdik v. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th 13 Cir. 1998) (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263). 14 Here, four factors favor dismissal. There is nothing in the record indicating that any Defendants 15 have been served, and Plaintiffs failed to file a written response to the court’s order to show cause. 16 This certainly is not “expeditious litigation,” and the court must keep the cases on its docket moving. 17 In addition, there is no risk of prejudice to Defendants, and the court already tried to move this case 18 along by issuing an order that clearly explained to Plaintiffs that they must file proof of service and 19 provided Plaintiffs an opportunity to show cause for failing to serve Defendants. 20 In sum, the court concludes that four of the five relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 21 Because no party has consented to or declined the undersigned’s jurisdiction, the court ORDERS the 22 Clerk to the Court to reassign this action to a district court judge. The court RECOMMENDS that 23 the newly-assigned district court judge dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 24 The March 28, 2013 show cause hearing is VACATED. 25 Any party may file objections to this Report and Recommendation with the district judge within 26 fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 27 Cal. Civ. L.R. 72. Failure to file an objection may waive the right to review of the issue in the 28 district court. C 12-05531 LB ORDER 2 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 27, 2013 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 12-05531 LB ORDER 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?