(PS) Vega v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
2:13-cv-01666
E.D. Cal.Nov 13, 2013Background
- Vega plaintiffs filed a predatory lending/foreclosure suit in Solano County; case later removed to this court on diversity grounds.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); motions noticed for hearing before the assigned district judge.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew; plaintiffs proceeded pro se; court referred pre-trial proceedings to the magistrate judge and vacated prior dates.
- Court issued a minute order giving plaintiffs a deadline to oppose the motions; warned dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for non-compliance.
- Plaintiffs again failed to file opposition or non-opposition by the extended November 7, 2013 deadline; orders continued to warn of dismissal.
- Court concluded through the Ferdik factors that dismissal with prejudice was warranted and recommended dismissal, with motions to dismiss denied as moot and case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute and comply with orders is appropriate | Vega plaintiffs did not oppose; pro se status argued for leniency | Non-compliance warrants dismissal under 41(b) and local rules | Dismissal with prejudice recommended; factors favor dismissal |
| Whether the court properly weighed Ferdik factors | Court should consider merits and potential remedies | Multiple factors support dismissal due to delay and non-compliance | Ferdik factors support dismissal; public policy weighed against merits |
| Whether less drastic sanctions were available | Sanctions other than dismissal could be imposed | Less drastic measures attempted; none effective given repeated non-compliance | Less drastic measures not feasible; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether the public policy favoring merits-based disposition overrides the sanction | Court should resolve on the merits if possible | Court already attempted to resolve on the merits but non-compliance prevented it | Public policy does not outweigh the need to manage the docket and sanction non-compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (five-factor dismissal framework for failure to comply with court orders)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (courts may dismiss sua sponte for failure to prosecute)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to follow local rules justifies dismissal)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) (unreasonable delay can be prejudicial)
- King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)