Homsy v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
Filing
31
ORDER Dismissing Action for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/3/2013. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
GEORGE HOMSY,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
No. C 13-01608 LB
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
13
14
15
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., fka
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS;
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS;
RECONSTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; and
DOES 1 through 50 inclusive,
16
17
18
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
Plaintiff George Homsy sued Defendants Bank of America, N.A., fka Countrywide Home Loans
19
(“BOA”), Residential Credit Solutions (“RCS”), and Recontrust Company, N.A. (“Recontrust”)
20
(collectively, “Defendants”) for violation of federal and state law in connection with pending
21
foreclosure proceedings against his property in San Francisco, California. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at
22
12.1 All three Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. See Motion (BOA and Recontrust), ECF
23
No. 6; Motion (RCS), ECF No. 9.
24
On June 3, 2013, the court dismissed Mr. Homsy’s sole federal claim with prejudice, declined to
25
retain jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, and dismissed them without prejudice. See
26
Order, ECF No. 28 at 10-11. The court stated:
27
28
1
Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the page number at the
top of the page.
C 13-01608 LB
ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
Should Mr. Homsy decide to file an amended complaint that establishes a basis for federal
jurisdiction, he shall file it within 21 days. If Mr. Homsy does not file an amended complaint
within 21 days, the court may close the case without further notice.
Id. at 11.
To date, Mr. Homsy has not filed an amended complaint, and the court has received no further
indication that he intends to prosecute this action. See generally Docket.
6
A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action. Ferdik v.
7
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss a claim for
8
failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the court weighs the following factors:
9
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its
alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Pagtalunan v.
12
For the Northern District of California
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); Ghazali v. Moran,
13
46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). These factors are a guide and “are ‘not a series of conditions
14
precedent before the judge can do anything.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability
15
Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158
16
F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support
17
dismissal, . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El
18
Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263).
19
Here, four factors support dismissal. Mr. Homsy has not filed an amended complaint, even
20
though it is past the court’s deadline for doing so. This certainly is not “expeditious litigation,” and
21
the court must keep the cases on its docket moving. There also is no risk of prejudice to the
22
Defendants. Finally, the court already tried to move this case along by issuing an order that clearly
23
explained to Mr. Homsy the deficiencies in his complaint, and gave him leave to file an amended
24
complaint that corrects those deficiencies.
25
In sum, the court concludes that four of the five relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
26
Accordingly, the court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Homsy’s action for failure to
27
28
C 13-01608 LB
ORDER
2
1
2
3
prosecute.2 The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 3, 2013
4
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
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
2
The court notes that Defendants BOA and Recontrust filed a motion to dismiss Mr.
Homsey’s action on July 2, 2013. ECF No. 29. In light of the court’s previous warning and the
court’s decision now, Defendants’ motion is moot.
C 13-01608 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?