The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Margaret M. Morrow
Present: The Honorable MARGARET M. MORROW
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants: Proceedings: Order Dismissing Action
On March 8, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint.*fn1
The court's order dismissed plaintiffs' Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") claim and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") claims with prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims.*fn2 The court dismissed plaintiffs' Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") claim with leave to amend, and directed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within twenty days of entry of the court's order.*fn3 To date, plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint. Consequently, the court dismisses plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.
Rule 41(b) permits courts to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to comply with a court order. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962) ("The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte . . . 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. . . . It would require a much clearer expression of purpose than Rule 41(b) provides for us to assume that it was intended to abrogate so well-acknowledged a proposition"); Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte dismissing a complaint for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming a lower court's dismissal for failure to follow court orders).
Where, as here, plaintiffs' claim has been dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiffs take no action, the Ninth Circuit has held that the appropriate response is the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal. See, e.g., Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004)
Yourish and Ferdik both arose when plaintiffs, given the opportunity to amend or be dismissed, nothing. In that situation, resources continue to be consumed by a case sitting idly on the court's docket. The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court's ultimatum -- either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so -- is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal. . . . Hence we understand the Ferdik-Yourish rule to require a threatened Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal to ferment into a Rule 41(b) dismissal only upon a plaintiff's inaction. When the plaintiff timely responds with a formal notice of his intent not to amend, the threatened dismissal merely ripens into a final, appealable judgment" (citations omitted)); see also, e.g., Grubb v. Hernandez, No. ED CV 06-00807 SJO (AJW), 2009 WL 1357411, *4 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2009) ("Plaintiff has not clearly made and communicated an affirmative choice to stand on his dismissed complaint and forgo amendment. Therefore, under the reasoning of Edwards, dismissal of this action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) is appropriate").
Involuntary dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when a majority of the following factors favor dismissal: (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; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits. Pagtalunan v.
, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260--61. Here, these factors weigh in favor ...