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.

Grant Chorliyan v. Experian Information Solutions Inc et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 27, 2013

GRANT CHORLIYAN
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC ET AL

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Gary Allen Feess

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable GARY ALLEN FEESS

Renee Fisher None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: (In Chambers)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff Grant Chorliyan ("Plaintiff") filed suit in February 2011 against Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian"), Equifax Inc. ("Equifax"), and Transunion LLC ("Transunion") alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA"), Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.2 et seq. (Docket No. 3 [Complaint ("Compl.") ¶¶ 28--31.) Since that time, Plaintiff has failed to produce the required Rule 26 initial disclosures and discovery responses, despite Judge Hillman's January 29, 2013 Order granting Transunion's motion to compel discovery responses and imposing a $1,000 sanction on Plaintiff. (Docket No. 21 [1/29/13 Order].) Transunion now moves to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Judge Hillman's January 29 Order. (Docket No. 22.)

In addition to failing to comply with Judge Hillman's Order, Plaintiff has failed to file any opposition to Transunion's Motion to Dismiss. In fact, Plaintiff has taken no action in this case whatsoever since filing the Joint Rule 26(f) Report in September 2012. (Docket No. 15.) Accordingly, prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Docket No. 25 [3/15/13 Order].) Plaintiff's response was due by close of business on Monday, March 25, 2013. (Id.) The Order explicitly warned Plaintiff that "[f]ailure to respond w[ould] be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action." (Id.); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962) ("The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 'inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.")

Plaintiff never responded to the Court's March 15 Order and the Court is therefore left with no choice but to dismiss the action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED. Defendant Transunion's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot and the hearing on this matter currently scheduled for April 1, 2013 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130327

© 1992-2013 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.