Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01357/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01357-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

18-cv-1357-AJB-KSC

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

MIR NEMATULLAH SADAT,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT 

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-1357-AJB-KSC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Presently before the Court is Defendant Education Credit Management 

Corporation’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mir Nematullah Sadat’s 

(“Plaintiff”) complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s

motion. For the reasons stated more fully below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions

to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On June 20, 2018, Defendant removed Plaintiff’s complaint from the Superior Court 

of the State of California to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 

at 1–2.) Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 3.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint is quite short. Plaintiff simply alleges that Defendant 

inaccurately reported derogatory information on Plaintiff’s credit file with major credit 

Case 3:18-cv-01357-AJB-KSC Document 11 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-cv-1357-AJB-KSC

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

bureaus. (Id.) Plaintiff’s complaint was removed to this Court on June 20, 2018. (Doc. No. 

1.) On June 27, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court set a 

briefing schedule. (Doc. No. 5.) On January 17, 2019, the Court then requested Plaintiff to 

file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 

10.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s 

complaint and allows a court to dismiss a complaint upon a finding that the plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law for (1) lack 

of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.” 

SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(citations omitted). However, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In making this determination, a court reviews the 

contents of the complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, and drawing all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l 

League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court need not accept “legal 

conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). It is also improper for a 

court to assume “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Associated 

Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526

(1983). However, “[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume 

their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to 

relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-01357-AJB-KSC Document 11 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-cv-1357-AJB-KSC

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

DISCUSSION

A district court may 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) (providing that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants’ motion to 

dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to the motion but 

failed to do so). Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides: “If an opposing party fails to file the 

papers in the manner required 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.”

Prior to dismissal on this basis, the Court must weigh “(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 on 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)).

“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the 

first factor is in favor of dismissal. Additionally, the second factor favors dismissal. As 

there is no risk to Defendant, the third factor also favors dismissal.

In regards to the fourth factor, public policy favors the disposition of cases on their 

merits. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, 

this factor weighs against dismissal. However, the case cannot proceed toward resolution 

on the merits when Plaintiff fails to participate in the litigation by failing to defend his or 

her complaint against a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, this factor does not outweigh 

Plaintiff’s failure to respond. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-01357-AJB-KSC Document 11 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-cv-1357-AJB-KSC

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

Finally, the Court must consider the availability of less drastic sanctions. Plaintiff 

was given ample time to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss, which has been pending 

for approximately eight months. Plaintiff has failed to respond, or to request an extension 

of time in which to do so, despite the Court requesting Plaintiff file a response 

approximately a month ago. Thus, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is 

appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of 

Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01357-AJB-KSC Document 11 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4