Miller v. Bank of America, N.A.

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES MILLER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00337-SKO 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 11 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 12 COURT ORDER TO JOIN A BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., NECESSARY PARTY UNDER RULE 19 Defendant. (Doc. 46) _____________________________________/ FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff Charles Miller (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) in Fresno County Superior Court. (See Doc. 1-1 at 4–11.) BANA removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction on March 5, 2021. (See generally Doc. 1.) BANA then filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 5.)

After granting BANA’s motion to dismiss on August 26, 2022, Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint. (See Doc. 24.) The First Amended Complaint, filed October 14, 2022, alleges claims against BANA for negligence and elder abuse. (See Doc. 27.)

BANA filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) on April 24, 2024, on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to join Plaintiff’s wife (“Wife”) as a required party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. (Doc. 45.) Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion. (See Docket.)

On May 16, 2024, the Court granted BANA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Wife is a required party who should be joined to the present action under Rule 19(a). (See Doc.

2 46.) The Court ordered Plaintiff, by no later than seven days of the date of the order, to file a Second Amended Complaint that joined Wife (or her representative, next friend, or guardian ad litem, if appropriate) as a party to this lawsuit. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint joining Wife as a party by the deadline.

6 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure 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.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.

10 “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 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 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 17 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

18 In addition, because Wife has been determined to be a required party whose joinder is feasible under Rule 19(a), she “must be joined.” McLaughlin v. International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 847 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added); see also Fed. R. Civ. 21 P. 19(a)(2) (“If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party.”) (emphasis added).

23 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Order, why the Court should not dismiss this case for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order to join a necessary party under Rule 19. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file (1) a Second Amended Complaint that joins Plaintiff’s wife, Judy Miller (or her representative, next friend, or guardian ad litem, if appropriate), as a party to this lawsuit, or (2) a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that the failure to act within 14 days of the date of service of this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: May 28, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE