Leticia Rodarte Hernandez et al v. Aurora Loan Services LLC et al
Filing
29
ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice by Judge John A Kronstadt, Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (shb)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
LA CV11-09798 (FFMx)
Title
Leticia Rodarte Hernandez, et al. v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC
Present: The Honorable
Date
May 21, 2012
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Andrea Keifer
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE JS-6
On April 23, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 27. The Court
granted Defendant’s motion with leave to amend, and instructed Plaintiffs to file any amended pleading
on or before May 14, 2012. Id. The Court specifically stated at such time that “[i]f no such complaint is
timely filed, Defendant shall submit a notice of non-filing and the case will be dismissed.” Id. Despite
these instructions from the Court, Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint on or before May 14,
2012. On May 18, 2012, Defendant filed a Notice of Failure to File First Amended Complaint, in
accordance with the Court’s April 23, 2012 Order. Dkt. 28. As of May 21, 2012, Plaintiffs have neither
responded to this notice nor filed any amended pleading.
Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this Court’s Order is grounds for dismissal of the action sua sponte and
with prejudice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules
or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”); Yourish v. Cal.
Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for a
plaintiff’s failure to file an amended pleading within the ordered timeframe); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,
356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court's
ultimatum-either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so-is properly
met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). In order for a court to dismiss a case for failure timely
to amend, “the district court must 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 the defendants; (4) the
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
alternatives.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (internal quotation omitted). It is appropriate to dismiss “where at
least four factors support dismissal, or where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Id.
(internal quotation and alteration omitted). Here, as in Yourish, three factors strongly favor dismissal.
The first factor, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of cases, strongly favors dismissal
because Plaintiffs’ failure to file an amended pleading within the mandated time period, or even within
one week of such period, improperly allows “Plaintiffs to control the pace of the docket rather than the
Court,” and consumes precious judicial resources while the case sits idle. Id. These same
considerations apply to the second factor, the Court’s need to manage its docket; thus, the second
factor also strongly supports dismissal. The Court finds that the third factor, the risk of prejudice to
Defendant, strongly favors dismissal because Plaintiffs’ complete inaction in response to the Court’s
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
LA CV11-09798 (FFMx)
Date
Title
May 21, 2012
Leticia Rodarte Hernandez, et al. v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC
prior Order has created an unreasonable delay. The fourth and fifth factors regarding the public policy
in favor of adjudicating cases on the merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives do not favor
dismissal. Notably, however, the Court gave Plaintiffs notice that the failure timely to file an amended
pleading would result in a dismissal. Accordingly, because the other three factors strongly favor
dismissal, and under Yourish, this showing is sufficient, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted.
For the reasons stated in this Order, and in accordance with its prior Order, this action is dismissed with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
ak
Page 2 of 2
]]>
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?
