Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00929/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00929-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Account Receivable

---

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

MARK WESLEY SCHNEIDER,

v.

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a

Texas limited partnership, THE BANK OF

NEW YORK MELLOW FKA THE BANK

OF NEW YORK, RECONTRUST

COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

and Does 1-10, inclusive.

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 3:12-cv-00929-AJB-NLS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 5]

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 5.) The motion is

unopposed. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.

I. 

Background

On September 2, 2005, Plaintiff, Mark Wesley Schneider, and his wife purchased a property

with a loan in the amount of $372,000. Plaintiff defaulted on the loan, and on August 18, 2011,

Defendant ReconTrust Company executed a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust.

On November 18, 2011, ReconTrust Company executed a Notice of Trustee’s Sale. On March 13, 2012,

Plaintiff filed a Complaint primarily alleging that Defendants Bank of America, as successor by merger

1 12cv00929

Case 3:12-cv-00929-AJB-NLS Document 8 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 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

to BAC Home Loans Servicing; Bank of New York Mellon; and ReconTrust Company lacked standing

to foreclose on Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff asserts violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5, fraud,

intentional misrepresentation, violation of Cal Civ. Code § 2923.6; violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1572,

violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (the “UCL”), and violation of the Truth in Lending Act

(‘TILA”). Plaintiff seeks rescission of the loan, economic and non-economic damages, declaratory and

injunctive relief, cancellation of any future foreclosure sale, restitution, statutory damages, punitive

damages, and attorney fees. On April 24, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Pursuant to this Court’s

order on April 23, 2012, Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was due on or before May 15,

2012. To date, no opposition or First Amended Complaint has been filed with the Court. 

II. 

Legal Standards

Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. As further described in Local Rule

7.1.f.3.a., the opposition must be in writing. Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a

consent to the granting of a motion” under Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c.

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); United

States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). The Ninth Circuit also permits dismissal pursuant

to a local rule where the party is acting pro se. Even though the court has an obligation to liberally

construe their pleadings, “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54

(citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). 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)). 

2 12cv00929

Case 3:12-cv-00929-AJB-NLS Document 8 Filed 05/29/12 Page 2 of 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

III. 

Discussion

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v.

Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Not only is orderly and swift resolution of disputes

importance to the rule of law, but delay in reaching the merits “is costly in money, memory, manageability, and confidence in the process.” In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217,

1227 (9th Cir. 2006). Along with determining the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the

litigation, the district court judge is also in the best position to determine whether the delay in failure to

oppose a motion or to comply with a timing requirement interferes with the court’s docket management. 

Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of

dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642.

“A defendant suffers prejudice if the plaintiff’s actions impair the defendant’s ability to go to

trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460

F.3d at 1227 (quoting Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)). Prejudice

may include failing to produce documents or submitting documents late. Id. Moreover, the law

presumes that unreasonable delay is prejudicial. Id. (citing In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1453). The plaintiff

may rebut this presumption either by showing that no actual prejudice occurred or by setting forth a

non-frivolous explanation for the delay, which then shifts the burden to the defendant to show some

actual prejudice. Id. (citing In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1453). Here, Plaintiff has failed rebut this presumption and accordingly this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits, this factor generally weighs against

dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. However, “a case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a

party’s failure to comply [with local rules] cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits.” In re

Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1228. Thus, this factor is not very persuasive to help a party who has

the responsibility to move a case toward disposition on the merits. Id. Accordingly, this factor weighs in

favor of dismissal. The district court must also consider the impact of the sanction of dismissal and the

availability of less drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1228.

3 12cv00929

Case 3:12-cv-00929-AJB-NLS Document 8 Filed 05/29/12 Page 3 of 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

Accordingly, the Court finds that the majority of these factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the

Complaint.

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

without prejudice. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to submit an amended

Complaint. Failure to do so will result in the Court’s dismissal of this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

4 12cv00929

Case 3:12-cv-00929-AJB-NLS Document 8 Filed 05/29/12 Page 4 of 4