Marscellas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
5:13-cv-05806
N.D. Cal.Jan 13, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (pro se) sued Wells Fargo in state court in October 2013 asserting claims arising from a foreclosure; defendant removed to federal court.
- Wells Fargo moved to dismiss in December 2013; Plaintiffs missed deadlines, filed a late opposition, and the Court allowed briefing and heard argument in June 2014.
- In June 2014 the parties reported a settlement; Plaintiffs then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in July 2014, later seeking and receiving relief to vacate that dismissal in September 2014.
- After inactivity by Plaintiffs, Wells Fargo filed another motion to dismiss in August 2015; Plaintiffs did not respond or appear at the November 2015 hearing.
- On December 15, 2015 the Court granted the motion with leave to amend and ordered any amended complaint due January 11, 2016, and issued an order to show cause warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).
- Plaintiffs took no further action, did not file an amended complaint or respond to the show-cause order, and the Court dismissed the action with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) on January 13, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's prolonged inaction warrants dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) | Plaintiffs did not present argument in response to the order to show cause or move to amend within the deadline | Wells Fargo argued dismissal or enforcement of court orders was warranted due to Plaintiffs' failure to prosecute and comply | Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) is appropriate for Plaintiffs' unreasonable delay and failure to comply with court orders |
| Whether the court must weigh the Henderson/Yourish factors before dismissing | Plaintiffs did not contest the need to apply the factors | Wells Fargo relied on case law that requires the court to consider public interest, docket management, prejudice, merits, and alternatives | Court applied the five-factor test and found four factors (expeditious resolution, docket management, prejudice to defendants, lack of effective alternatives) favored dismissal; only disposition on merits weighed against dismissal |
| Whether lesser sanctions were available or appropriate | Plaintiffs offered no proposal for lesser sanctions or extensions | Wells Fargo argued lesser sanctions pointless given Plaintiffs' prolonged noncompliance | Court found lesser sanctions futile given Plaintiffs’ lack of response and ordered dismissal with prejudice |
| Whether court may dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b) | No responsive argument from Plaintiffs | Wells Fargo supported dismissal; court relied on precedent permitting sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute | Court concluded it may dismiss sua sponte and did so based on Link and related authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts may impose dismissal for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, including sua sponte)
- Yourish v. Calif. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999) (district court must consider five-factor test before dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2010) (unreasonable delay is required to support Rule 41(b) dismissal)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (articulating factors to consider when imposing dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to respond to court’s ultimatum supports dismissal under Rule 41(b))