Anderson v. Bank of America NA Melon
2:17-cv-00103
D. Nev.Aug 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Barbara K. Anderson filed suit in the District of Nevada; the court ordered her to file an amended complaint by a set deadline (May 8, 2017 order).
- The court warned that failure to file the amended complaint would result in dismissal.
- The deadline expired and Anderson did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond.
- The court’s last order was returned as undeliverable, suggesting Anderson had not updated her mailing address.
- The district court considered dismissal under its inherent docket-control authority and Ninth Circuit standards for dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal is appropriate for failure to file an amended complaint and comply with court order | Anderson did not file an amended complaint or oppose dismissal (no argument presented) | Defendants implicitly seek dismissal for noncompliance and failure to prosecute | Court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to comply and prosecute |
| Whether the court properly considered Ninth Circuit dismissal factors | No argument from Anderson | Defendants rely on case law permitting dismissal when factors favor it | Court applied factors (public interest in expeditious resolution, docket management, prejudice, policy favoring merits, alternatives) and found dismissal warranted |
| Whether less drastic sanctions were available or required | No argument from Anderson asserting alternatives | Defendants contend warning in prior order sufficed; dismissal appropriate | Court found prior warning satisfied requirement to consider alternatives and dismissal appropriate |
| Whether prejudice to defendants existed from delay | No argument from Anderson | Defendants argue delay presumptively prejudices them | Court held presumption of prejudice arises from unreasonable delay and weighed that factor in favor of dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (district courts may dismiss actions to control their dockets)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rules)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with order to amend complaint)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to keep court apprised of address and other rules)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court orders)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and local rule violations)
- Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (presumption of prejudice from unreasonable delay)