Anderson v. Bank of America NA Melon et al

Filing 12

ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Courts orders. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 08/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 BARBARA K. ANDERSON, Case No. 2:17-cv-00103-MMD-CWH Plaintiff, 10 ORDER v. 11 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. MELON, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 On May 8, 2017, plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within thirty 15 (30) days. (ECF No. 10.) That deadline has has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed 16 an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.1 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 21 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 23 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 24 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 25 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 26 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 27 28 1In fact, the Court’s last order was returned as undeliverable. It appears that Plaintiff has failed to file her updated mailing address. 1 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 2 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 3 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 5 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several 6 factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 7 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 8 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 9 alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 10 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 11 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 12 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 13 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in 14 favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 15 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. 16 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor ─ public 17 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits ─ is greatly outweighed by the factors 18 in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure 19 to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 20 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; 21 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended 22 complaint within fifteen (15) days expressly stated: “Failure to file an amended complaint 23 will result in dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 10.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 24 that dismissal would result from her noncompliance with the Court’s orders to file an 25 amended complaint. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s orders. 3 The Court is directed to close this case. 4 DATED THIS 10th day of August 2017. 5 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?