Laygo et al v. World Savings Bank et al

Filing 12

AMENDED ORDER that case be reassigned to a district court judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The March 28, 2013 show cause hearing is VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/28/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/28/2013: # 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
ANDREA C. LAYGO et al,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiffs,
13

v.

14

No. C 12-05531 LB
AMENDED ORDER THAT CASE BE
REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT
COURT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WORLD SAVINGS BANK et al,
15
16

[Re: ECF No. 1]
Defendants
_____________________________________/

17

Plaintiffs Andrea C. Laygo, Teresito M. Laygo, and Teresito Joselito Catalan (collectively,

18

“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants World Savings Bank and Golden West Savings

19

Association Service Company (collectively, “Defendants”) on October 26, 2012. Complaint, ECF

20

No. 1 at 1.1 This means that, pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiffs had

21

until February 23, 2013 to serve Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Order to Show Cause,

22

ECF No. 9 at 1. To date, Plaintiffs have filed no proof that Defendants have been served. See

23

generally Docket. Because Plaintiffs had not filed any proof that Defendants had been served, on

24

March 5, 2013, the court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause, by filing a written response by March 21,

25

2013, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Order to

26

Show Cause, ECF No. 9 at 1. The clerk of the court served Plaintiffs by mail, but all

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.
C 12-05531 LB
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

1

correspondence to Plaintiffs has been returned undeliverable. See Dkt. Entries at ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7,

2

8, 10.

3

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action. Ferdik v.

4

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss a claim for

5

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the court weighs the following factors: (1)

6

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

7

(3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and

8

(5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d

9

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). These factors are a guide

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006)

12
For the Northern District of California

and “are ‘not a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything.’” In re

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

(quoting Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is

13

appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal, . . . . or where at least three factors

14

‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)

15

(quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263).

16

Here, at least four factors favor dismissal. There is nothing in the record indicating that any

17

Defendants have been served, Plaintiffs have not filed any notification regarding a change in address,

18

and they have not prosecuted the case. This is not “expeditious litigation,” and the court must keep

19

the cases on its docket moving. Also, there is no risk of prejudice to Defendants.

20

Because no party has consented to or declined the undersigned’s jurisdiction, the court ORDERS

21

the Clerk to the Court to reassign this action to a district court judge. The court RECOMMENDS

22

that the newly-assigned district court judge dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to

23

prosecute. The March 28, 2013 show cause hearing is VACATED. Any party may file objections to

24

this Report and Recommendation with the district judge within fourteen days after being served with

25

a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72. Failure to file an

26

objection may waive the right to review of the issue in the district court.

27

IT IS SO ORDERED.

28

C 12-05531 LB
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

2

1

Dated: March 28, 2013

2

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

3
4
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 12-05531 LB
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

3