Edwin Caraang v. Pnc Mortgage , 481 F. App'x 362 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN PASCUA CARAANG and No. 11-17027
EDNA GOROSPE CARAANG,
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00594-LEK-
Plaintiffs - Appellants, BMK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
PNC MORTGAGE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Edwin and Edna Caraang appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing
their action alleging federal and state law claims challenging a non-judicial
foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Caraangs’
action after the Caraangs failed to comply, allegedly due to their counsel’s
calendaring errors, with an order requiring them to file an amended complaint or
face dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing dismissal of action for failure
to comply with court orders); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (listing factors to guide
dismissal under Rule 41(b)); see also Casey v. Albertson’s, Inc., 362 F.3d 1254,
1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (“parties are bound by the actions of their lawyers, and
alleged attorney malpractice does not usually provide a basis to set aside a
judgment”). Dismissal followed the court’s prior use of less drastic alternatives,
and, under the circumstances, served both the public’s interest in expeditiously
resolving litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket. See Ferdik, 963
F.2d at 1262-63 (dismissal appropriate where three out of five factors support it).
Issues not supported by argument, including those concerning the merits of
prior rulings dismissing the Caraangs’s claims for failure to state a claim and
2 11-17027
striking their first amended complaint, are deemed abandoned. See Am. Int’l
Enters., Inc. v. FDIC, 3 F.3d 1263, 1266 n.5 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-17027