Hafiz v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S ACTION. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/18/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/18/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ls, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division ASHARFUN NISHA HAFIZ, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiff, v. No. C 14-00387 LB ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION 13 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, 14 15 16 Defendant. _____________________________________/ On December 16, 2013, Plaintiff Asharfun Hafiz filed a form complaint against Defendant 17 Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”) in small claims court in Alameda County. See Complaint, 18 ECF No. 1 at 5-10. In that complaint, Ms. Hafiz alleged that Nationstar violated the Fair Debt 19 Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, one or more times from January 1, 20 2013 through December 10, 2013 and owes her $1,000 per violation. See id. at 6. This is the extent 21 of Ms. Hafiz’s factual allegations. 22 On January 27, 2014, Nationstar removed the action to federal court based on federal question 23 jurisdiction arising out of Ms. Hafiz’s FDCPA claim. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 2. 24 Nationstar then moved to dismiss Ms. Hafiz’s complaint. Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7. Ms. Hafiz 25 did not file an opposition. 26 The court agreed with Nationstar’s argument that Ms. Hafiz failed to meet her pleading burden 27 under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8 by failing to plausibly state a claim for relief. While Ms. Hafiz alleged 28 that “debt is disputed” and that Nationstar violated the FDCPA, she failed to allege factual matter C 14-00387 LB ORDER 1 sufficient to give Nationstar fair notice of the claims against it and the court adequate detail to 2 consider Nationstar’s other arguments. For instance, given the complete lack of factual allegations, 3 the court could not assess whether Nationstar is a “debt collector” subject to the FDCPA or whether 4 Ms. Hafiz sufficiently disputed the subject loan. Accordingly, the court granted Nationstar’s motion 5 and dismissed without prejudice Ms. Hafiz’s complain. The court allowed Ms. Hafiz to file an 6 amended complaint curing the deficiency described above by April 8, 2014. 7 It is now April 18, 2014, and Ms. Hafiz has not filed an amended complaint, and the court has A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action. Ferdik v. 10 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss a claim for 11 failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the court weighs the following factors: 12 For the Northern District of California received no further indication that she intends to prosecute this action. See generally Docket. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 13 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic 14 alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Pagtalunan v. 15 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61); Ghazali v. Moran, 16 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). These factors are a guide and “are ‘not a series of conditions 17 precedent before the judge can do anything.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 18 Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 19 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support 20 dismissal, . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El 21 Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263). 22 Here, four factors support dismissal. Ms. Hafiz has not filed an amended complaint, and it is 23 past the court’s deadline for doing so. The court also has received no other indication that she 24 intends to proceed with her litigation. This certainly is not “expeditious litigation,” and the court 25 must keep the cases on its docket moving. There also is no risk of prejudice to Nationstar. Finally, 26 the court gave her a clear deadline to file an amended complaint and explained the deficiencies in 27 her original complaint, but she has failed to take advantage of these opportunities. 28 In sum, the court concludes that four of the five relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal. C 14-00387 LB ORDER 2 1 Accordingly, the court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ms. Hafiz’s action for failure to 2 prosecute. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 18, 2014 _______________________________ 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 C 14-00387 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?