The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Michael Seabright United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION
On January 30, 2012, Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang entered his Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss Action (the "January 30 F&R"). The January 30 F&R made this recommendation after pro se Plaintiffs Melvin Keakaku Amina and Donna Mae Amina ("Plaintiffs") failed to: (1) file any Oppositions to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, due January 9, 2012, see Doc. No. 123 (notifying Plaintiffs of deadlines for summary judgment motions); (2) file a Pretrial Conference Statement, due January 10, 2012; (3) appear at the January 17, 2012 Final Pretrial Conference; (4) appear at the January 25, 2012 hearing on Magistrate Judge Chang's Order to Show Cause; and (5) appear at the January 30, 2012 hearing on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs filed an Objection to the January 30 F&R on February 3, 2012, yet failed to appear at the February 23, 2012 hearing on their Objection. Based on the following, the court ADOPTS the January 30 F&R.
On March 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed this action alleging claims against Defendants WMC Mortgage LLC ("WMC"), General Electric Company ("GE"), MERSCORP, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS entities"), Chase Home Finance LLC and Chase Home Finance, Inc. ("Chase entities"), and LCS Financial Services Corporation ("LCS") (collectively "Defendants") for violations of federal and state law stemming from a mortgage transaction and subsequent threatened foreclosure of real property located at 2304 Metcalf Street #2, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822.
Plaintiffs initially participated in this action -- Defendants filed two rounds of dispositive motions, and Plaintiffs (after asking for and receiving various extensions of their deadlines) filed Oppositions. Ultimately, the court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against WMC and GE, leaving claims against Chase entities, MERS entities, and LCS.
During a third round of dispositive motions filed by the remaining Defendants on October 27 and 28, 2011, Plaintiffs stopped meeting necessary deadlines. The court set the hearing on these Motions for January 30, 2012, and issued to Plaintiffs a "Notice to Pro Se Litigants" setting forth that Plaintiffs' Oppositions are due by January 9, 2012. Doc. No. 123. Plaintiffs failed to file an Opposition, and thereafter failed to file a Pretrial Conference Statement by the January 10, 2012 deadline. On January 12, 2012, Plaintiffs did, however, file a Motion to Consolidate this action with another action they filed in this court,*fn1 and Melvin Amina filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
After Plaintiffs failed to appear at the Final Pretrial Conference on January 17, 2012, Magistrate Judge Chang issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs did not appear at the January 25, 2012 hearing on the OSC, and also failed to appear at the January 30, 2012 hearing on the pending Motions for Summary Judgment. As a result, Magistrate Judge Chang issued his January 30 F&R to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.
On February 3, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Objection to the January 30 F&R. That same day, the court set the hearing on Plaintiffs' Objection to the January 30 F&R for February 9, 2012, and Defendants filed Responses on February 6, 2012. On February 7, 2012, the court received a facsimile from Plaintiffs that they left the country on February 1, 2012 and would return on February 14, 2012. The court therefore reset the hearing on Plaintiffs' Objection for February 23, 2012, a date which the Courtroom Manager confirmed directly with Donna Mae Amina (via Skyping through Plaintiffs' daughter). Plaintiffs failed to appear at the February 23, 2012 hearing.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations, the district court must review de novo those portions to which the objections are made and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.").
Under a de novo standard, this court reviews "the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before, and as if no decision previously had been rendered." Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). The district court need not hold a de novo hearing; however, it is the court's obligation to arrive at its own independent conclusion about those portions of the magistrate ...