Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03029/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03029-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345fc Foreclosure

---

1

3:16-CV-3029-CAB-JLB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ZAKAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-CV-3029-CAB-JLB

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on December 14, 2016. Because no activity had occurred 

on the docket as of March 27, 2017, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show 

cause why the lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Four days letter, 

Plaintiff filed proofs of service reflecting that the summons and complaint had been served 

on four of the seven defendants on March 31, 2017. On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff responded 

to the order to show cause stating that the remaining three defendants “have been sent out 

for service [sic].”

On April 19, 2017, the four defendants who were served filed a motion to dismiss 

the complaint for failure to state a claim. The motion included a notice of a hearing date 

(set for briefing purposes only) of May 24, 2017. Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party 

opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition no later than

fourteen calendar days before the noticed hearing. Failure to comply with these rules “may 

constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. Here, Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:16-cv-03029-CAB-JLB Document 14 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-CV-3029-CAB-JLB

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

opposition to the motion to dismiss was due no later than May 10, 2017. As of the date of 

this order, no opposition has been filed.

District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including 

dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 

52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule 

by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). Before 

dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] 

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 of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986)).

These factors weigh in favor of granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing this 

lawsuit in its entirety for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has made no effort to prosecute this 

lawsuit, failing even to serve the summons and complaint until prompted by the Court. 

Plaintiff’s lack of action is consistent with the assertion in the motion to dismiss that this 

lawsuit is merely a continuation of a state court action and “a new attempt to prolong 

litigation and engage in gamesmanship.” [Doc. No. 13 at 5.] Moreover, the motion itself 

appears meritorious and equally applicable to the claims against the three defendants who 

have yet to be served. Ultimately, based on the lack of opposition and of the apparent 

merits of the motion itself, the Court finds that “the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice 

to the defendants” all weigh in favor of granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing this 

action in its entirety. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the unopposed motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED and the claims against the four defendants who filed the motion are 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that the lawsuit is 

Case 3:16-cv-03029-CAB-JLB Document 14 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-CV-3029-CAB-JLB

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

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety with respect to all claims against

all defendants for failure to prosecute.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-03029-CAB-JLB Document 14 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3