Alexander v. U.S. Bank National Association et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting in part and denying in part dft US Bank National Assoc's 16 Motion to Dismiss; granting dfts Glogowski Law Firm and Allegiant Law Group's 18 Motion for Joinder. Case is dismissed with prejudice. Pltf to pay dft US Bank $2,080.50 in attorneys' fees within 10 days by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

Case No. C16-1045 RSM

GARY W ALEXANDER,

10

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et
al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant U.S. Bank National Association

17

(“U.S. Bank”)’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #16.1 Pursuant to Rules 37 (b)(2)(A)(v), 37 (d)(3)

18

and 41(b), U.S. Bank moves the Court for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice and

19
20

awarding U.S. Bank the attorney’s fees and costs it has incurred in defending this action. Dkt.

21

#16 at 1. Plaintiff fails to oppose this Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

22

GRANTS IN PART U.S. Bank’s Motion.

23

I.

24

BACKGROUND

A full background of this case is not necessary for the purposes of this Motion. On

25
26
27
28

August 18, 2016, the Court issued its Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report
1

The Court notes the unopposed Motion to Join filed by Defendants Glogowski Law Firm and Allegiant Law
Group. Dkt. #18. The Court finds such Motion unnecessary given the requested relief of dismissal of all of
Plaintiff’s claims. The Court will grant this Motion but concludes that an award of expenses to these Defendants is
not requested, supported, or just given the circumstances of this case.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION’S MOTION
TO DISMISS - 1

1

and Early Settlement. Dkt. #8. The Order directed the parties to provide initial disclosures

2

under Rule 26(a)(1)(A) on or before September 22, 2016, to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference

3

by September 15, 2016, and to file a combined Joint Status Report by September 29, 2016. Id.

4

Defendant U.S. Bank timely provided U.S. Bank’s initial disclosures, but Plaintiff failed to

5
6

provide disclosures or otherwise respond. See Dkt. #10 at ¶ 2.

7

U.S. Bank’s counsel emailed Plaintiff on August 22 and September 9, 2016, and left a

8

voicemail for Plaintiff on September 13, 2016, seeking his cooperation in scheduling the Rule

9

26(f) conference and in preparing and filing the Joint Status Report as required by the Court.

10

Plaintiff failed to respond in any fashion. Id. at ¶ 3.

11
12

Plaintiff was served via mail and email with U.S. Bank’s First Set of Interrogatories and

13

Requests for Production to Plaintiff on September 25, 2016. Id. at ¶ 4; Dkt. #10-1. Plaintiff

14

apparently failed to respond in. On October 25, 2016, U.S. Bank’s counsel emailed Plaintiff

15

asking when responses would be received. Plaintiff never responded. Dkt. #10 at ¶ 4. On

16

October 28, 2016, U.S. Bank’s counsel telephoned Plaintiff and conducted a Rule 37(a)(1)(A)

17
18

conference regarding Plaintiffs failure to respond to the discovery requests. Id.

Plaintiff

19

apologized for his delay and promised to serve complete responses on or before Friday

20

November 4, 2016. Id. U.S. Bank received nothing from Plaintiff. Id. U.S. Bank filed a

21

Motion to Compel on November 7, 2016. Dkt. # 9. Plaintiff failed to respond. The Court

22
23

granted the Motion to Compel and a subsequent Motion for Attorney Fees. Dkts. #11 and #15.

24

The Court gave Plaintiff until December 15, 2016, to comply with his discovery obligations.

25

Dkt. #11. Plaintiff has apparently failed to do so. Dkt. #16 at 2. U.S. Bank filed the instant

26

motion on January 9, 2017. Plaintiff has again failed to respond.

27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION’S MOTION
TO DISMISS - 2

II.

1

DISCUSSION

2

Rule 26(a)(1)(A) requires Plaintiff to provide basic information to support his claims in

3

this action. Plaintiff has continued to ignore that rule. Plaintiff has now ignored the Court’s

4

subsequent Order on U.S. Bank’s Motion to Compel. Under Rules 37(b)(2)(A) and 37(d)(3),

5
6

sanctions may be warranted for Plaintiff’s behavior, up to and including dismissal. Plaintiff has

7

had notice of the possibility of this extreme sanction, and has again failed to respond. Under

8

Local Rule 7(b)(2), if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be

9

considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.

10

In deciding whether a sanction of dismissal or default for noncompliance with discovery

11
12

is appropriate, the district court must weigh five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

13

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

14

[opposing party]; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

15

availability of less drastic sanctions.” Computer Task Grp., Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112,

16

1115 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court has considered each of these factors and determined that

17
18

Plaintiff’s complete lack of compliance with this Court’s prior Orders, obligation to respond to

19

Motions, and obligations under the rules regarding discovery leave the Court with no less

20

drastic sanction than dismissal with prejudice. The Court is forced to agree with U.S. Bank that

21

Plaintiff “has done nothing but file a lawsuit and sit on his hands,” and that Plaintiff is

22
23

apparently hoping to “string out this lawsuit unnecessarily with no foreseeable resolution.”

24

Dkt. #16 at 3. Accordingly, the Court finds that U.S. Bank’s requested relief is warranted and

25

GRANTS its Motion.

26
27

Under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), in addition to the above sanction, the Court “must order
[Plaintiff] to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure [to

28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION’S MOTION
TO DISMISS - 3

1

comply with the Court’s discovery order], unless the failure was substantially justified or other

2

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” U.S. Bank argues that it should be awarded

3

“the full amount of attorneys fees and costs incurred in defending this action,” however U.S.

4

Bank cites to no authority for that proposition. Instead, the Court finds that U.S. Bank should

5
6

be awarded only the reasonable expenses incurred after Plaintiff failed to comply with the

7

Court’s Order granting U.S. Bank’s Motion to Compel, beginning on December 15, 2016.

8

Given the circumstances of this case, the Court determines that the award of further expenses

9

would be unjust and is not supported by sufficient legal authority. The Court has reviewed

10

U.S. Bank’s supporting declaration, determined that the specific hours in question and rate are

11
12

reasonable, and calculates the award at a sum of $2,080.50.
III.

13
14
15
16

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,
and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
1) Defendants Glogowski Law Firm and Allegiant Law Group’s Motion to Join (Dkt.

17
#18) is GRANTED.

18
19

2) Defendant U.S. Bank National Association’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #16) is

20
21

GRANTED IN PART.
3) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

22
23

4) Plaintiff shall pay Defendant U.S. Bank the sum of $2,080.50 in attorneys’ fees
within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order.

24
25

//

26

//

27

//

28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION’S MOTION
TO DISMISS - 4

1
2
3
4

DATED this 31st day of March 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION’S MOTION
TO DISMISS - 5