Hernandez De Leon v. Ocwen Loan Servicing

Filing 38

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. The Court ORDERS plaintiff to file a response to 35 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE: PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Citi Bank, N.A. by December 28, 2016.. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action. A copy of this Order has been mailed by first and certified mail (#9727) to the Plaintiff. ( Responses due by 12/28/2016)(Montes, Mariliz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
JANURIS HERNANDEZ DE LEON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 16-10402-LTS
)
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER
December 6, 2016
SOROKIN, D.J.
On October 5, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this case (Doc. 35). To date,
Plaintiff has not responded or requested an extension of time to respond. Plaintiff is hereby
ORDERED to respond to the Motion to Dismiss by December 28, 2016, or face dismissal of this
case.
This Court “has inherent power to dismiss case[s] sua sponte for failure to prosecute,” so
as to facilitate “the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct.
1885, 1892 (2016) (citing, inter alia, Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631-32 (1962)).
“Claims that a court has abused its discretion in dismissing a case for . . . failure to prosecute
have not received a sympathetic ear . . . .” Vazquez-Rijos v. Anhang, 654 F.3d 122, 127 (1st Cir.
2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Moreover, in the federal system the Civil Rules reinforce and augment the inherent
power of district courts to dismiss cases for disregard of judicial orders.” Young v. Gordon, 330
F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), 41(b)). “[D]isobedience of court orders
1

is inimical to the orderly administration of justice and, in and of itself, can constitute extreme
misconduct.” Id. (citations omitted). “[A] finding of bad faith is not a condition precedent to
imposing a sanction of dismissal,” and such sanction will be “reviewed only for abuse of
discretion,” with the “sanctioned litigant bear[ing] a weighty burden in attempting to show that
an abuse occurred.” Id. at 81-82 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss by
December 28, 2016. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action.
The Clerk shall mail this Order to Plaintiff’s counsel, in addition to placing it on the
case’s ECF docket.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

2