Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Agha Bakht v. Chase Home Finance LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California


August 22, 2011

AGHA BAKHT,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO REASSIGN CASE

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Since filing the complaint in this matter, Plaintiff Agha Bakht has failed to serve Defendant

the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a district court judge with the following report and

the reasons set forth below, the Court finds this case suitable for dismissal for failure to prosecute. D However, as Plaintiff has yet to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the undersigned

ORDERS

Chase Home Finance LLC, despite several extended opportunities from the Court. Accordingly, for

recommendation. 19 On January 10, 2011, Plaintiff Agha Bakht filed the above-captioned complaint, at which

time the Clerk of Court scheduled the matter for a case management conference on April 21, 2011. 21 However, as there was no indication that Defendant had been served, the Court vacated the c.m.c. on 22 April 14, 2011, and ordered Plaintiff to file a status report by May 5, 2011. (Dkt. #3.) Plaintiff 23 failed to respond, and the Court ordered her to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for 24 failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. (Dkt. #4.) 25 On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a declaration in response. (Dkt. #5.) In her declaration, 26 Plaintiff stated as follows: "Due to my personal exgencies and to much busy schedule Pl. extend the 27 date by June 30, 2011." Although Plaintiff's response failed to provide any specific reason for her 28 failure to prosecute, the Court permitted her another opportunity to proceed with this case, discharged the order to show cause, and ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendant and file proof of 2 service with the Court by June 30, 2011. (Dkt. #6.) The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to 3 comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of Plaintiff's case. 4 As of August 1, 2011, Plaintiff had failed to file any proof of service, and there was still no 5 indication that Defendant had been served. Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause for a 6 second time why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. #7.) The Court 7 warned Plaintiff that she must provide specific and legitimate reasons for her failure to prosecute 8 and establish good cause to permit her case to move forward. Id. Plaintiff has again failed to 9 respond. 10 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), failure to comply with a court order can 11 warrant dismissal. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In "determining 12 whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, the district court must weigh five

factors including '(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need

61 (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, Plaintiff has to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.'" Id. at 1260-

failed to serve Defendant, failed to comply with Court orders and deadlines, and failed to respond to

the order to show cause. Thus, the Court finds that the Ferdik factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 19 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned judge dismiss this case for

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's deadlines and orders. The September 1, 21 2011 order to show cause hearing is VACATED. 22 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Plaintiff may serve and file objections to this 23 Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Number: 11-00099 MEJ

AGHA BAKHT, Plaintiff, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 11 Court, Northern District of California. 12 That on August 22, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said 13 envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle C located in the Clerk's office.

Agha Bakht Susan Place, Unit 2 16 Hayward, CA 94544 17 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 19 By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk U

Dated: August 22, 2011

20110822

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.