Millennium Franchise Group, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-08684
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Millennium Franchise Group v. Bank of America, Judge Breyer dismissed the action without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to obtain new counsel and prosecute its case.
Millennium Franchise Group, LLC’s action was dismissed without prejudice and the case was closed. The defendants obtained dismissal, but the Court did not dismiss the action with prejudice.
What happened
In Millennium Franchise Group, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., the plaintiff’s lawyer withdrew, and the court gave the plaintiff deadlines—later extended—to obtain replacement counsel. The plaintiff did not file the required substitution of counsel despite repeated warnings that the case could be dismissed.
The court also considered the plaintiff’s earlier delays, including failures involving interrogatories, discovery discussions, and case-management statements. Although those delays increased the defendants’ costs and legal fees, the defendants did not show the kind of irreversible harm that would justify permanently dismissing the case.
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and dismissed the action without prejudice. The clerk was instructed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Millennium Franchise Group, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A. · No. 3:21-cv-08684
- Charles Breyer
- May 23, 2025
Background
Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff’s counsel withdrew and the plaintiff did not obtain new counsel within the deadlines set by the Court. The Court granted counsel’s withdrawal on March 17, 2025, and gave the plaintiff 30 days to file a substitution of counsel. The Court warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The Court later granted the plaintiff a 20-day extension, setting May 7, 2025, as the deadline. The plaintiff did not file a substitution of counsel by that date. Although the plaintiff told the Court that it had identified new counsel and expected representation to be finalized by May 9, no substitution was filed. The Court then gave the plaintiff until May 22, 2025, to file the substitution or face dismissal. That deadline also passed without a filing.
Defendants also identified earlier delays by the plaintiff, including failing to timely respond to interrogatories in April 2024 and failing to meet and confer about discovery disputes and case-management conference statements in 2024 and 2025.
Court’s reasoning
The Court applied five factors used in the Ninth Circuit when deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute: the public interest in resolving cases quickly, the Court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe sanctions were available.
The Court found that the plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with orders and move the litigation forward warranted dismissal. Defendants showed that the delays increased their costs and legal fees, but the Court concluded that these expenses were not the type of prejudice supporting dismissal with prejudice. Defendants did not identify irreversible prejudice, such as lost evidence or witness memory. The Court also noted that defendants could seek to recover costs and fees, which was a less severe option than dismissal with prejudice.
Ruling
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was instructed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.