Creditors Trade Association, Inc. v. Globalware Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/26/12. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

CREDITORS TRADE ASSOCIATION,
INC.,

8
Plaintiff(s),

No. C 11-4258 PJH

9
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
GLOBALWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
et al.,

12

Defendant(s).
_______________________________/

13
The complaint in this matter was filed on August 29, 2011, and on the same day,
14
summonses were issued for defendants and a scheduling order setting a case
15
management conference for December 9, 2011 was filed. On September 20, 2011, the
16
summonses were returned executed. However, no answers were filed by any defendant.
17
At the December 9, 2011 case management conference, no appearance was made by any
18
party. The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned judge because no
19
consent to the then assigned magistrate judge had been received. A new scheduling order
20
was filed on December 14, 2011, setting a new case management conference for January
21
12, 2012. Again, no appearance was made by any party. Even though defendants have
22
been served and appear to have defaulted, since it is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute
23
this matter and because plaintiff has chosen not appear in response to the court’s orders
24
not once but twice and has not otherwise sought defendants’ default, the court issued an
25
Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why the case should not be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to
26
prosecute, and scheduled a hearing on the OSC for January 26, 2012. The OSC
27
specifically warned plaintiff that if it failed to appear again, the case would be dismissed
28

1

for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

2

Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing on the OSC on January 26, 2012. The court

3

having considered the five factors set forth in Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833

4

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and having determined that notwithstanding the public policy

5

favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the court's need to manage its docket

6

and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of the litigation require dismissal of this

7

action. In view of plaintiff's lack of response to this court's prior orders, the court finds there

8

is no appropriate less drastic sanction. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice

9

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2