United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2022

Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided January 3, 2022
Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Trial Court Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CEDRIC ARMSTRONG-HARRIS, Case No. 21-cv-07637-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER VACATING CASE 9 v. MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 10 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff Cedric Armstrong-Harris filed a complaint against Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Specialized Loan Servicing in Alameda Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. On September 29, 2021, Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court. Id. On October 6, 2021, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. No. 7, and represents that it served the motion on Plaintiff that same day, Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on or before October 20, 2021. See Civil L.R. 7-3 (“The opposition must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was filed.”). Plaintiff did not file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition by the deadline, as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). Wells Fargo filed a notice of non-opposition on November 2, 2022. Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff has not made any filing before this Court since Wells Fargo removed the case.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that where a “plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” A defendant need not file a motion in order for a district court to dismiss a case under Rule 41(b), given the Supreme Court’s statement that “[t]he authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs[.]”

See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962).

1 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be || dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff shall file a statement of no more || than two pages by January 17, 2022. In addition, the case management conference set for January || 4, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 || Dated: 1/3/2022 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge a 12

© = 17 Z 18

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.