The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
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 ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
On January 3, 2012, the Court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition filed by Defendants U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank") and Mortgage Electronic Systems Inc. ("MERS"), with leave to amend [Doc. # 18]. The Court ordered Plaintiff Marilyn E. Veincentotzs to file any amended complaint by January 18, 2012. Veincentotzs did not file an amended complaint. Instead, on January 13, 2012, she filed what she entitled a "MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THIS COURT'S JANUARY 3, 2012 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 59(E)." [Doc. # 20; capitalization in original.] The Court construed Plaintiff's Motion as a motion for reconsideration and, on February 9, 2012, denied her motion. [Doc. # 23.]
As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs has not filed any 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 file her written response on or before March 2, 2012. Failure to file a timely response shall result in the dismissal of this action forthwith.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...