Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Karen P. v. Terman Apartments

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 5, 2013

KAREN P., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
TERMAN APARTMENTS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE Re: ECF Nos. 104, 108

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

The Court previously dismissed all claims in this action for housing discrimination and related claims. Plaintiffs have failed to file an amended complaint. Because Plaintiffs have not justified their failure to prosecute this action, the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

I. BACKGROUND

Karen P., Abdirahman Guleed, and R.P., all of whom are appearing pro se, are former tenants of Terman Apartments, a housing complex run by Defendants Terman and Goldrich. Compl. ΒΆΒΆ 4, 6, ECF No. 10. This action arises out of Plaintiffs' eviction from Terman Apartments.

Plaintiffs brought seven claims against Defendants Terman, Goldrich, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development: (1) housing discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act ("FHAA"); (2) violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"); (3) "assault and battery on a minor;" (4) defamation; (5) negligence; (6) "long time exposure to mold and sevier [sic] gas leak;" and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF No. 10.

On May 17, 2013, the Court granted three motions to dismiss brought by Defendants. ECF No. 103. The Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' SCRA claim on the ground that the claim is barred by res judicata because it was previously litigated in an unlawful detainer action in state court. Id. at 7-8. The Court also dismissed without prejudice the rest of the claims in the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint no later than June 17, 2013. Id. at 15. In that order, the Court encouraged Plaintiffs to seek the assistance of the Legal Help Center in amending their complaint. Id.

Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint by July 17, 2013.

On July 1, 2013, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 104. In that order, the Court required Plaintiffs to file by July 31, 2013, either a statement explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or an amended complaint. Id.

Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by that date. Instead, they filed a statement in which they appear to (1) object to the reassignment of this action from San Jose to San Francisco on the ground that such reassignment was done "without notice or hearing"; (2) object to the Court's resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss without oral argument; and (3) object to the Court's dismissal of their SCRA claim on the ground that the dismissal "was in error." ECF No. 108. Plaintiffs request further leave to amend the complaint on the ground that they "can prove the facts in support of the claim which would entitle Plaintiffs' relief." Id. at 4. Plaintiffs, however, neither explain why they have been unable to file an amended complaint thus far nor demonstrate that they would be able to allege sufficient facts with respect to the claims that the Court dismissed without prejudice on May 17, 2013.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute." McKeever v. Block , 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). A district court "is required to weigh several factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution. These factors include: (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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. There must also be a showing of unreasonable delay. The district court is not required to make explicit findings on the essential factors." Al-Torki v. Kaempen , 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Dismissal is appropriate "where at least four factors support dismissal... or where at least three factors strongly support dismissal." Hernandez v. City of El Monte , 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court concludes that four of the five factors discussed above strongly support the dismissal of this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.