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).

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