From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Helo v. Bank of America Servicing Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 23, 2014
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01522 - --- - JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01522 - --- - JLT

12-23-2014

KAHIR B. HELO, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA SERVICING COMPANY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

Plaintiff Kahir Helo initiated this action by filing complaint against Bank of America Servicing Company and Nation Star Mortgage, asserting the companies are liable for misrepresentation and for utilizing foreclosure procedures that violated of California's Homeowner Bill of Rights. (Doc. 1.) On November 25, 2014, the Court determined Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims for relief, and dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days of the date of service, or no later than December 19, 2014. (Id. at 4). To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court's order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: "Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure comply with the Court's order or, in the alternative, to file an amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Helo v. Bank of America Servicing Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 23, 2014
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01522 - --- - JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014)
Case details for

Helo v. Bank of America Servicing Co.

Case Details

Full title:KAHIR B. HELO, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA SERVICING COMPANY, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 23, 2014

Citations

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01522 - --- - JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014)