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: Sharon Coleman v. Bank of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 4, 2012

TITLE: SHARON COLEMAN
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, U.S. District Judge

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

PRESENT: HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Rita Sanchez None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On November 13, 2012, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend based on Plaintiff Sharon Coleman's failure to oppose the Motion. (Docket No. 6). In the November 13, 2012 Order, the Court stated that failure to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the Order would result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The deadline for filing an amended complaint was therefore November 27, 2012. Coleman has not responded to the Court's Order or filed an amended complaint.

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 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 she initiated hampers expeditious resolution of litigation and inhibits the Court's ability to manage its docket. Plaintiff has had various opportunities to prosecute this case such that a dismissal with prejudice does not unfairly impact her rights. Local Rule 41-1.

Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121204

© 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.