Zamora et al v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 29

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 8/5/2013. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

MARCY ZAMORA and MARCOS
ZAMORA,

8
Plaintiffs,
9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.

10

WELLS FARGO BANK,

11

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

No. C 13-134 MEJ

13

On July 1, 2013, the Defendant in the above-captioned matter filed a Motion to Dismiss, with

14

a noticed hearing date of August 8, 2013. Dkt. Nos. 22, 25. However, Plaintiffs Marcy and Marcos

15

Zamora failed to file an opposition pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7. Accordingly, the Court ordered

16

Plaintiffs to show cause by August 1, 2013 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

17

prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Dkt. No. 26. At that time, the Court gave

18

notice to Plaintiffs that the Court may dismiss the case without a hearing if no responsive declaration

19

is filed. Plaintiffs have failed to respond.

20

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), failure to comply with a court order can

21

warrant dismissal. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In “determining

22

whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, the district court must weigh five

23

factors including ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

24

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

25

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Id. at 1260-

26

61 (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, Plaintiffs failed

27

to file an opposition to Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, failed to comply with Court orders

28

and deadlines, failed to respond to the order to show cause, and have made no appearance in this

1

matter since filing their amended complaint. Further, failure to follow a district court’s local rules is

2

a proper ground for dismissal. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, the Court

3

finds that the Ferdik factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

4
5
6

Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this case for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with the Court’s deadlines and orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: August 5, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

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
2