UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 3, 2012
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Rita Sanchez None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDERDISMISSINGACTIONWITH
On June 14, 2012, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 32).
The Court permitted Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days.
The deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint was June 28, 2012. Plaintiff to date has not filed an amended complaint.
The Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint constitutes failure to prosecute or to comply with court rules and orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) ("In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits."); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989-92 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining the factors supporting dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute). Because Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's order and file an amended complaint, the Court concludes that the Pagtalunan factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action with prejudice. Plaintiff's failure to engage in the litigation he initiated hampers expeditious resolution of litigation and inhibits the Court's ability to manage its docket. Plaintiff has had various opportunities to prosecute his case, so a dismissal with prejudice does not unfairly impact his rights.
Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.