Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04748/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04748-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

PRECOSIA F. PERDIGUERRA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

MERIDAS CAPITAL, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-4748 SBA 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 

Docket 26 

This is a mortgage fraud case brought by Plaintiffs Precosia F. Periguerra and Marcario 

M. Periguerra against Defendants, Meridas Capital, Inc. (“Meridas”), Mortgage Electronic 

Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), CR Title Services, Inc. (“CR Title”) and Citimortgage, 

Inc. (“Citimortgage”). The parties are presently before the Court on Defendants Citimortgage, CR 

Title and MERS’ (collectively “MERS Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 

12(b)(6). Having read and considered the papers submitted in connection with this matter, and 

being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), the Court adjudicates the instant motion without 

oral argument. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that they were defrauded by Defendants in connection with the 

refinancing of their home. On September 17, 2009, Plaintiffs, through their counsel of record, 

filed a Complaint in Contra Costa County Superior Court which alleged eleven causes of action 

for: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Declaration of Nullity of Documents; (3) Accounting; (4) Quiet 

Title; (5) Fraud; (6) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (7) Violation of Civil 

Code §§ 1916.7 and 1921; (8) Violation of the California Commercial Code; (9) Breach of 

Case 4:09-cv-04748-SBA Document 32 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Fiduciary Duty; (10) Violation of California Business and Profession Code section 17200; and 

(11) Injunctive Relief. On October 6, 2009, MERS Defendants removed the action under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331.

On February 1, 2010, the Court granted the MERS Defendants and Defendant Meridas’ 

respective motions to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket 23. 

The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint within fourteen days of the 

date the Order was filed. Although the amended complaint was due on February 15, 2010, 

Plaintiffs, without prior leave of Court, filed their First Amended Complaint on February 26, 2010. 

Docket 25. Shortly thereafter, the MERS Defendants and Meridas separately filed motions to 

dismiss the amended complaint. Docket 26, 27. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to MERS 

Defendants’ motion. 

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the Court to dismiss an action where 

plaintiff has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s local rules or 

any court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to this 

authority, the Ninth Circuit has held that the failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss in 

contravention of the local rules is grounds for granting the motion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit held that in exercising its discretion 

to dismiss an action for failing to comply with a district court’s local rules or orders, the court is 

“required to weigh several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.’” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). Upon 

balancing the Ghazali factors under the facts of this case, the Court finds that dismissal is 

warranted. 

 The first and second factors both favor dismissal. Under Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiffs were 

obligated to file their opposition to the pending motion by no later than March 23, 2010. In 

violation of that rule, they failed to do so. In addition, Plaintiff failed to abide by the Court’s Order 

Case 4:09-cv-04748-SBA Document 32 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

directing them to file their amended complaint within two weeks of the Court’s Order granting 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ repeated failures to comport with Court’s filing 

requirements undermine the Court’s ability to expedite the resolution of the action. Such noncompliance inherently delays resolution of the case and insures to the detriment of the public. See

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It is incumbent upon the Court to 

manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants[.]”); Yourish v. 

California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing court’s need to control its 

own docket); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (non-compliance with a court’s order diverts 

“valuable time that [the court] could have devoted to other major and serious criminal and civil 

cases on its docket.”). 

 The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, is related to the strength of the 

plaintiff’s excuse for the default, if any. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Here, Plaintiffs have 

offered no “excuse” for their non-compliance, nor is any apparent from the record. Since the filing 

of the motion to dismiss, the Court has received no submissions from Plaintiffs regarding that 

motion. Plaintiffs simply have failed to provide any reason whatsoever for their failure to comply 

with the Court’s Orders and none is apparent from the record. These facts also weigh strongly in 

favor of dismissal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991; Ghazali, 46 F.3d. at 54. 

 The fourth factor favoring disposition of cases on the merits, by definition, weighs against 

dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. 

Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”) 

 Finally, the Court has considered less drastic alternatives to dismissal. The Court 

previously could have dismissed the action based on Plaintiffs’ untimely filing of their First 

Amended Complaint—but chose not to do so. In addition, the Court’s Standing Orders warn that 

as a consequence of a party’s failure to oppose a motion, the Court would construe such inaction as 

a consent to the granting of the motion. “[A] district court’s warning to a party that failure to obey 

the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of [less drastic sanctions]’ 

requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We 

conclude that because Brydges was warned of the consequence of his failure to respond to the 

Case 4:09-cv-04748-SBA Document 32 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

appellees’ summary judgment motion, the district court did not err by deeming his failure to 

respond a consent to the motion for summary judgment.”).1 Weighing the relevant factors, the 

Court exercises its discretion and grants the MERS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The MERS Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. All claims alleged in the 

First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the MERS Defendants. The 

April 13, 2010, hearing date is VACATED. 

2. The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for April 13, 2010, is 

CONTINUED to May 12, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. The parties (other than the MERS Defendants) 

shall meet and confer prior to the conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management 

Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the Case 

Management Conference that complies with the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern 

District of California and the Standing Order of this Court. Plaintiffs shall be responsible for 

filing the statement as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on the line 

and shall call (510) 637-3559 at the above indicated date and time. 

3. This Order terminates Docket No. 26. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 6, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

 1 “[A]n express warning regarding the possibility of dismissal is [not] a prerequisite to a 

Rule 41(b) dismissal when dismissal follows a noticed motion under Rule 41(b).” In re Eisen, 31 

F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Case 4:09-cv-04748-SBA Document 32 Filed 04/07/10 Page 4 of 4