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.

Title Maria Reyes v. Wells Fargo Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 19, 2012

TITLE MARIA REYES
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

On December 28, 2011, the Court issued an order granting Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("Wells Fargo") motions to dismiss and strike portions of Plaintiff Maria Reyes's first amended complaint [Doc. # 12]. The Court ordered Reyes to file any amended complaint by January 12, 2012. As of the date of this Order, Reyes has not filed an amended complaint.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders where the plaintiff has engaged in "unreasonable delay." Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). In evaluating whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted, the Court must weigh the following 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 sanctions." Omstead, 594 F.3d at 1084 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff shall filed her written response on or before February 1, 2012. Failure to file a timely response shall result in the dismissal of this action forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120119

© 1992-2012 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.