Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02435/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02435-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157(d) Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

1

18cv2435-CAB-JMA

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

In re: Michael Sevier and Linda Sevier, 

Debtors,

Michael Sevier and Linda Sevier,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB, 

d/b/a, Christiana Trust, not individually 

but as trustee for the Pretium Mortgage 

Acquisition Trust; Seterus Finance; Selene 

Finance, LP; Les Zieve, Esq.; and Zieve, 

Brodnax & Steele, LLP,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2435-CAB-JMA

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 8]

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Seterus, 

Inc. (erroneously sued as Seterus Finance). The motion was filed on January 23, 2019 and 

set a hearing date (for briefing purposes only) of February 27, 2019. Civil Local Rule 

7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition no later than fourteen calendar days before the noticed hearing. Thus, based on 

the hearing date of February 27, 2019, Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss was 

Case 3:18-cv-02435-CAB-JMA Document 9 Filed 02/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2435-CAB-JMA

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

due on February 13, 2019. No opposition has been filed. Under the local rules, Plaintiffs’ 

failure to oppose “may constitute a consent to the granting of [the] motion.” Civ. Local R. 

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) (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)).

Here, while the Ghazali factors support granting the motion based on the lack of 

opposition alone, upon review of the motion and of the adversary complaint and 

“supplemental” complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against Seterus 

and that no argument in opposition could possibly persuade the Court otherwise. 

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED on its merits for the reasons set forth in 

the motion, and the complaint is DISMISSED as to Defendant Seterus.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02435-CAB-JMA Document 9 Filed 02/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2