UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 21, 2012
TITLE: ARCHIE BUSH
WELLS FARGO BANK NA ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, U.S. District Judge
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Rita Sanchez Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On August 22, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 16). In that Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by no later than September 5, 2012. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. No amended complaint was filed.
The Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to oppose Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and failure to file an amended complaint constitutes failure to prosecute and 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 Plaintiff failed to follow the Court's directives and rules aimed at the timely prosecution of his case, 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. The scheduling conference set for September 24, 2012, is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.