Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01770/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01770-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 - 10cv1770

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUADALUPE GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1770 JLS (RBB)

ORDER: GRANTING (1) PNC

BANK N.A. AND PNC

MORTGAGE’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AND (2) GMAC

WHOLESALE MORTGAGE

CORPORATION’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 4, 6)

vs.

PNC MORTGAGE; PNC BANK N.A.;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;

NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE; GMAC

WHOLESALE MORTGAGE

CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants.

On June 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed in San Diego Superior Court a complaint against Defendants

PNC Mortgage, PNC Bank N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., National City

Mortgage, and GMAC Wholesale Mortgage Corporation. (Doc. No. 1 Ex. A (Compl.).) On August

24, 2010, Defendants PNC Bank N.A. and PNC Mortgage (collectively, PNC) removed the action to

this Court. (Doc. No. 1 (Notice of Removal).) PNC and GMAC Wholesale Mortgage Corporation

(GMAC) moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on August 27, 2010 and September 29, 2010,

respectively. (Doc. Nos. 4, 6.)

On August 31, 2010, the Court set a briefing schedule on PNC’s motion, and on September

30, 2010, the Court set a briefing schedule on GMAC’s motion. (Doc. Nos. 5, 7.) Pursuant to the

Case 3:10-cv-01770-AJB-RBB Document 11 Filed 11/03/10 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

- 2 - 10cv1770

briefing schedules, Plaintiff’s opposition to PNC’s motion was due by September 20, 2010, and

Plaintiff’s opposition to GMAC’s motion was due by November 1, 2010. (Doc. Nos. 5, 7.)

Plaintiff did not oppose PNC’s motion by the date required by the briefing schedule. On

October 6, 2010, Plaintiff, through counsel Francisco J. Aldana, filed an ex parte motion for an

enlargement of time to file her opposition to PNC’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 8.) Plaintiff

requested an amended briefing schedule with the same dates provided with respect to GMAC’s

motion. (Id. at 2.) On October 7, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion but declined to amend

the briefing schedule to mirror the briefing schedule provided with respect to GMAC’s motion. (Doc.

No. 9, at 2 n.1 (“Such a modification would leave Defendants’ reply due three days after the hearing

date set for the instant motion.”).) The Court gave Plaintiff until October 18, 2010 to respond to

PNC’s motion. (Doc. No. 9, at 1.) The time to respond to both motions has now passed, and Plaintiff

has not responded to either 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., 2010 WL 4117444, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19,

2010) (Anello, J.) (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 nonopposition 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 prejudice to PNC and GMAC

Case 3:10-cv-01770-AJB-RBB Document 11 Filed 11/03/10 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

- 3 - 10cv1770

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 similar to this one are currently pending and awaiting resolution.

GMAC seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. (Doc. No. 6-1

(GMAC’s Mem. ISO MTD), at 24.) PNC does not indicate whether it seeks dismissal with or without

leave to amend. (See Doc. No. 4-1 (PNC’s Mem. ISO MTD).) Nevertheless, in light of the fact that

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose PNC’s and GMAC’s motions almost surely resulted from counsel’s

deficient performance, dismissal with prejudice is premature. See Navarro, 2010 WL 4117444, at *2.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS PNC’s and GMAC’s motions to dismiss and DISMISSES

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims against PNC Mortgage, PNC Bank N.A., National City

Mortgage, and GMAC Wholesale Mortgage Corporation.

If Plaintiff wishes to continue litigating this case, she must file an amended complaint

addressing the deficiencies raised in PNC’s and GMAC’s motions within 30 days of the date that this

Order is electronically docketed. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel, Francisco J. Aldana, shall personally

serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and file proof of service with the Court within 7 days of the date

that this Order is electronically docketed. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01770-AJB-RBB Document 11 Filed 11/03/10 Page 3 of 3