Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01492/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01492-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1605 Determination of Finance Charge

---

1

3:18-cv-1492-CAB-BGS

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

JANE MCKAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AFFINIA 

DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-1492-CAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 3]

On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of 

California against Defendant asserting various claims arising out of a notice of default and 

the institution of foreclosure proceedings on certain real property located in Fallbrook, 

California. [Doc. No. 1-2.] On June 29, 2018, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells 

Fargo”), removed the lawsuit to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction 

because the complaint asserts a claim for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 

15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. [Doc. No. 1.] On July 6, 2018, Wells Fargo filed a motion to 

dismiss [Doc. No. 3]. No opposition has been filed.

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. CivLR 

7.1.e.2. Failure to comply with the local rules setting a deadline to oppose a motion “may 

Case 3:18-cv-01492-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 08/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-1492-CAB-BGS

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

constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” CivLR 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). That Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in 

this action does not excuse her failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other 

litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow 

the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).

Here, Wells Fargo filed proofs of service for both the notice of removal and the

motion, signaling that Wells Fargo served both documents on Plaintiff by United States 

Mail at the address provided on the face of the complaint. [Doc. No. 1-1 at 2; Doc. No. 3

at 25.] The motion has a noticed hearing date of August 13, 2018, making Plaintiff’s 

opposition due on July 30, 2018. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed a 

response.

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, the Court 

assumes that Plaintiff no longer intends to prosecute this action against Wells Fargo and 

consents to the granting of the motion. See CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the complaint is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims against Wells Fargo. 

The complaint does not assert any federal claims against Defendant Affinia Default 

Services, LLC (“Affinia”), and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over the state law claims against Affinia. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to San 

Diego County Superior Court with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Affinia.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01492-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 08/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2