Lawrence v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 29

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 7/17/2014. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2014)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8

EDWARD LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

12

No. C 14-1272 PJH

Defendant.
_______________________________/

13
14

The court having granted the motion of defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells

15

Fargo"), to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, and having

16

granted leave to amend, and plaintiff Edward Lawrence having failed to file a second

17

amended complaint by the July 14, 2014, deadline imposed by the court, the court finds

18

that the above-entitled action must be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.

20

In determining that the case must be dismissed, the court has considered the

21

following factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

22

court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants or

23

respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy

24

favoring disposition of cases on their merits. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642

25

(9th Cir. 2002); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir.1988). In general, the first two

26

factors favor dismissal, while the fourth cuts against dismissal. Thus the key factors are

27

prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions. See Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652,

28

656 (9th Cir. 1990).

1

Here, the court finds that the prejudice against Wells Fargo of being compelled to

2

defend against a lawsuit in which the plaintiff has been given leave to amend a deficient

3

complaint, but has failed to do so, outweighs any possible prejudice to the plaintiff resulting

4

from the dismissal. The court finds further that no lesser sanction is available under the

5

circumstances presented here. On balance, the applicable factors favor dismissal.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: July 17, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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