Case3:09-cv-04878-MHP Document24 Filed10/04/10 Page1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
No. C 09-4878 MHP
9 GRACE JI YUN CHUNG,
10 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
11 v. Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12 NBGI, INC.,
13 Defendant.
/
14
15
16 BACKGROUND
17 Plaintiff Grace Ji Yun Chung (“plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants NBGI, Inc.
18 (“NBGI”), GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC”) and ETS Services, LLC (“ETS”) (collectively
19 “defendants”) alleging multiple violations of federal and state law for failing to make proper
20 disclosures in connection with the refinance of her home. Having considered the parties failure to
21 comply with the court’s orders, the court now enters this memorandum and order dismissing this
22 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
23
24 LEGAL STANDARD
25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows for the dismissal of an action for failure of a
26 plaintiff to comply with a court order. In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to
27 comply with a court order, the courts consider the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in
28 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
 Case3:09-cv-04878-MHP Document24 Filed10/04/10 Page2 of 2

1 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and
2 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-1261 (9th
3 Cir. 1992). The court need not make explicit findings regarding each factor. Id. at 1261.
4
5 DISCUSSION
6 On December 12, 2009, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims as to defendants GMAC and
7 ETS, leaving NBGI as the sole defendant. Docket No. 20 (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss). On
8 March 30, 2010, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Docket No. 21
9 (Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction). Thereafter the court set the
10 following dates: September 27, 2010, for a further case management conference, and September 20,
11 2010, by which time the parties were to file their Joint Case Management Statement. The parties did
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12 not file a Joint Case Management Statement by the court’s deadline; neither did plaintiff, plaintiff’s
13 counsel, defendant nor defendant’s counsel appear before the court as scheduled on September 27,
14 2010. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court now dismisses this
15 action for failure to comply with the court’s orders and failure to prosecute.
16
17 CONCLUSION
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20 Dated: October 1, 2010
MARILYN HALL PATEL
21 United States District Court Judge
Northern District of California
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2