Miller v. Bank of America, N.A. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHARLES MILLER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00337-SKO 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 11 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS TO JOIN A 12 NECESSARY PARTY UNDER RULE 19 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 13 (Doc. 48) Defendant. 14 _____________________________________/ 15 On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff Charles Miller (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against 16 Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) in Fresno County Superior Court. (See Doc. 1-1 at 17 4–11.) BANA removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction on March 5, 2021. 18 (See generally Doc. 1.) BANA then filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the 19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 5.) 20 After the Court granted BANA’s motion to dismiss on August 26, 2022, Plaintiff was given 21 leave to file an amended complaint. (See Doc. 24.) The First Amended Complaint, filed October 22 14, 2022, alleges claims against BANA for negligence and elder abuse. (See Doc. 27.) 23 BANA filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) on 24 April 24, 2024, on the ground that Plaintiff failed to join Plaintiff’s wife (“Wife”) as a required 25 party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. (Doc. 45.) Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion. (See 26 Docket.) 27 On May 16, 2024, the Court granted BANA’s unopposed motion for judgment on the 28 1 pleadings, finding that Wife is a required party who must be joined to the present action under Rule 2 19(a). (See Doc. 46.) The Court ordered Plaintiff, by no later than seven days of the date of the 3 order, to file a Second Amended Complaint that joined Wife (or her representative, next friend, or 4 guardian ad litem, if appropriate) as a party to this lawsuit. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff did not file an 5 amended complaint joining Wife as a party by the deadline. 6 On May 29, 2024, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within fourteen days 7 why the Court should not dismiss this case for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order 8 to join a necessary party under Rule 19. (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff was warned in the OSC that the failure 9 to act within the time allowed would result in the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiff did 10 not file any response to the OSC, and the time to do so has passed. 11 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 12 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 13 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 14 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 15 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 16 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 17 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure 18 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., 19 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an 20 order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 21 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 22 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 23 In addition, because Wife has been determined to be a required party whose joinder is 24 feasible under Rule 19(a), she “must be joined.” McLaughlin v. International Ass’n of Machinists 25 & Aerospace Workers, 847 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added); see also Fed. R. Civ. 26 P. 19(a)(2) (“If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be 27 made a party.”) (emphasis added). 28 1 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to the Court’s orders to 2 join a necessary party under Rule 19, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 3 Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: June 17, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28