Rosalina Romo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2:17-cv-04467
C.D. Cal.Aug 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Rosalina Romo filed an action that was removed to federal court on June 15, 2017.
- Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP moved to dismiss the complaint; Wells Fargo filed on June 22, 2017 and Barrett Daffin joined on June 28, 2017.
- Romo did not oppose the motion to dismiss and did not otherwise participate after removal.
- On August 3, 2017 the Court granted the motion to dismiss and issued an order to show cause requiring Romo to explain by August 21, 2017 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, warning that noncompliance could lead to dismissal with prejudice.
- Romo failed to respond to the order to show cause.
- The Court dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the Clerk to treat the order as entry of judgment under Rule 58 and Local Rule 58-6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders is appropriate | Romo offered no opposition or excuse (no argument presented) | Defendants sought dismissal based on Romo's nonparticipation and failure to comply | Court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with the order to show cause |
| Whether lesser sanctions were available or required before dismissal | Romo did not request or identify lesser sanctions | Defendants argued dismissal was warranted after warning and failure to respond | Court found the show-cause order and warning adequate; dismissal was appropriate because alternatives had been considered and plaintiff did not respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (recognizes district court authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute to prevent undue delays)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss for failure to comply with court orders)
- In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (sets out factors for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff must move the action toward resolution and avoid dilatory tactics)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal but must consider meaningful alternatives)