Pregana et al v. Citimortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 6/12/2014. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I CIVIL NO. 14-00226 DKW-KSC BESSIE LEE-FREITAS PREGANA; BRIAN JOSEPH PREGANA, SR., ORDER DISMISSING CASE Plaintiffs, vs. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; STEVEN T. IWAMURA; ROBERT M. EHRHORN, JR.; KEN OHARA; LORI K. STIBB, Defendants. ORDER DISMISSING CASE On May 21, 2014, the magistrate judge entered an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The May 21, 2014 Order directed Plaintiffs to remit the filing fee by June 4, 2014, and cautioned that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this action. As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not paid the required filing fee. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes involuntary dismissal for failure “to prosecute or to comply with [the federal] rules or a court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). To determine whether dismissal is appropriate, the Court must 1 consider five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). The public interest in expeditious resolution of this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket outweigh the policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits. The Court finds that the balance of the five factors weighs in favor of dismissal. Here, dismissal is appropriate given Plaintiffs’ failure to pay the required filing fee and to comply with previous court orders. See In re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of pro se litigant’s appeal for failure to pay required filing fee); see also Hamrick v. Fukino, 2009 WL 1404535, at *2 (D. Haw. May 20, 2009) (holding that plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis were sufficient grounds to recommend dismissal of the action). 2 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the case be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 12, 2014, at Honolulu, Hawai’i. Bessie Lee-Freitas Pregana, et al. v. CitiMortgage, Inc.; et al.; CV 14-00226 DKW-KSC; ORDER DISMISSING CASE 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?