Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01350/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01350-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

ROGER SHAHAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1350 JLS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

(ECF No. 15)

vs.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; CALWESTERN RECONVEYANCE

CORPORATION; NATIONSTAR

MORTGAGE LLC; AMERICAN

SERVICING COMPANY, and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive,

Defendant.

On June 6, 2012, Plaintiff Roger Shahan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants

for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, violation of California Civil Code §§ 2932.5, 2923.5,

2923.6, 2932.5, and 2934, fraud-intentional, fraud-concealment, negligence, violation of Real

Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), violation of California Financial Code § 50505,

unfair debt collection practices in violation of the Rosenthal Act, and violation of California’s

Business & Professions Code § 17200. (Compl., ECF No.1.) On June 27, 2012, Defendants

America’s Servicing Company and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Defendants”) filed

a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint or Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement. 

- 1 - 12cv1350

Case 3:12-cv-01350-JLS-NLS Document 20 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 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

(Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15.) 

On June 28, 2012, the Court set a briefing schedule on Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 16.) 

Pursuant to the briefing schedule, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion was due by July 23,

2012. On July 30, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte motion1 to extend Plaintiff’s time to

respond to August 2, 2012 and vacated the hearing set for the motion on August 9, 2012. (ECF

No. 18.) Since then, the Court has received no opposition—timely or untimely—to Defendants’

motion. On August 9, 2012, Defendants filed a reply indicating that Plaintiff “has failed to file an

Opposition.” (Reply in Supp., ECF No. 19.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to

oppose Defendants’ motion. 

“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.” Navarro v. Greenlight Fin. Servs., No. 10cv1631, 2010 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 111018, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (citing Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th

Cir. 1995)). Under Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the

manner requested by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting

of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” Rule 7.1(e)(2) requires a party opposing a

motion to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition no later than fourteen days prior to the

noticed hearing, unless otherwise provided by court order.

Although 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), “a case cannot move forward toward

resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a Rule

12(b)(6) motion,” Navarro, 2010 WL 4117444, at *2. “Thus, this policy lends little support to a

party whose responsibility is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct

impedes or completely prevents progress in that direction.” Id. The public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation, the Court’s need to manage its docket, and the potential

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s ex parte Request to Enlarge Time to File Opposition to

Defendant’s [sic] Motion to Dismiss, filed on July 24, 2012, was filed after the deadline for Plaintiff’s

opposition had already expired. (ECF No. 17.)

- 2 - 12cv1350

Case 3:12-cv-01350-JLS-NLS Document 20 Filed 11/05/12 Page 2 of 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

prejudice to Defendants all weigh in favor of dismissal. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The Court

finds that dismissal of this action pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) serves to vindicate these

interests given that several cases on similar footing are currently pending before the Court and

awaiting resolution.

Defendants requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims without leave to amend. (Mot. to

Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 2.) Nevertheless, the Court considers dismissal with prejudice

premature. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and DISMISSES

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to continue

litigating this case against Defendants, he SHALL FILE an amended complaint addressing the

deficiencies raised in Defendants’ motions within 14 days of the date that this Order is

electronically docketed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 5, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv1350

Case 3:12-cv-01350-JLS-NLS Document 20 Filed 11/05/12 Page 3 of 3