BINAL S. PATEL and SHAILESH PATEL v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, a California corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BINAL S. PATEL and SHAILESH
PATEL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, a California
corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-55071
D.C. No. 8:11-cv-00826-AG-RNB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 8, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE, Senior
District Judge.***
FILED
AUG 29 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Binal S. and Shailesh Patel appeal the district court’s dismissal of their
amended complaint. The district court granted defendant Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage’s (“Wells Fargo”) unopposed motion to dismiss the Patels’ original
complaint, brought for alleged improper foreclosure of their property, but granted
leave to amend. After the Patels filed their first amended complaint, which added
New Hope Capital LLC (“New Hope”) as a defendant, the district court heard
arguments and granted defendants’ motions to dismiss as to all defendants, and
allowed the Patels twenty-one days in which to file a second amended complaint.
Almost two months after the deadline to file a second amended complaint, the
district court, on New Hope’s motion, dismissed the case with prejudice for failure
to amend the first amended complaint.
The court of appeals reviews a district court’s decision to dismiss an action
for failure to file an amended complaint in a timely manner for abuse of discretion.
Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). The Patels argue that the
district court violated their due process rights by failing to afford them the
opportunity to respond before dismissing the case. We disagree.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), if a party fails to comply with a court
order, the court has discretion to dismiss the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of
the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum---either by amending
the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so---is properly met
with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal”). The Patels failed to comply or
otherwise communicate their intentions before the deadline to amend; therefore,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --