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: Jorge C. Ojeda et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank Na et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 3, 2012

TITLE: JORGE C. OJEDA ET AL.
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK NA ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Rita Sanchez Not Reported N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE

TO PROSECURE

On June 13, 2012, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, citing Plaintiffs' failure to timely file an opposition in keeping with Local Rules 7-9 and 7-12. (Docket No. 13). In that Order, the Court advised Plaintiffs of the existence of the Pro Se Clinic and ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by no later than June 27, 2012. In its Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court warned Plaintiffs that failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. No amended complaint was filed.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs' failure to file an amended complaint constitutes failure to prosecute or to comply with court rules and orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See also 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 Plaintiffs failed to oppose the prior Motion to Dismiss and 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. Plaintiffs' failure to engage in the litigation they initiated hampers expeditious resolution of litigation and inhibits the Court's ability to manage its docket. Plaintiffs have had various opportunities to prosecute their case, so a dismissal with prejudice does not unfairly impact their 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.

___: N/A

Initials of Preparer RS

20120703

© 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.