Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01549/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01549-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

- 1 - 10CV1549-MMA (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOPHIA MONTEROSA, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV1549-MMA (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 3]

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a form

unknown; FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR

TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., form

unknown; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

On July 8, 2010, Plaintiff Sophia Monteroso filed a civil action in the Superior Court of the

State of California, County of San Diego, Central Division relating to real property located at 4570

Narragansett Avenue, San Diego, CA 92107. On July 26, 2010, Defendants removed the action to

federal court. On August 2, 2010, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moved to dismiss the action

under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 3.) Thereafter, on August 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion

for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 5.) On August 9, 2010, the Court held a hearing and denied

Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 9.) The hearing for Defendant’s motion to dismiss was scheduled for

August 30, 2010. Accordingly, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e), Plaintiff’s opposition was due

Monday, 16, 2010. Plaintiffs failed to file an opposition or otherwise seek an extension by which to

respond to the motion. Noting that there was no opposition, the Court took the motion under

submission without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1) on August 24, 2010. (Doc.

No. 11.) 

Case 3:10-cv-01549-MMA-WVG Document 12 Filed 08/27/10 Page 1 of 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

1

On August 23, 2010, Defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss, indicating

that shortly after the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, Plaintiff filed for

relief in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. (Def.’s Reply at 2:10–13.) Because Plaintiffs have filed bankruptcy

since the filing of this suit, Plaintiffs case has become part of the bankruptcy estate. See Cobb v.

Aurora Loan Services, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57937 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2009); Hernandez v. Downey

Savings and Loan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21495 (S.D. Cal. March 17, 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiff

is no longer the “real party in interest” within the meaning of Rule 17(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and she thus no longer has standing to litigate this case. Plaintiff’s lack of standing

provides a basis for dismissal of this action as well. 

- 2 - 10CV1549-MMA (WVG)

The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss

pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for

failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Local Civil Rule

7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the manner required by Local

Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of that motion or other ruling by

the court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendants’ motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s

failure to respond, and it chooses to do so. Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their

merits. See, e.g., Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case

cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her

case. Thus, this policy lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward

disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes or completely prevents progress in that direction.

See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994). In addition, management of this Court’s docket

is of vital significance to the proper and timely resolution of matters before it. Consequently, the Court

finds dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) serves to facilitate the

management of its docket in light of the fact that multiple cases similar to the one at bar are currently

pending and poised in the same procedural posture. For the reasons set forth above, the Court

GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion and DISMISSES this action without prejudice pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court is ordered to close the case

file.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 27, 2010 ______________________________

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01549-MMA-WVG Document 12 Filed 08/27/10 Page 2 of 2