Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01460/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01460-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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- 09cv1460-WQH-CAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA GARIBAY, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1460-WQH-CAB

ORDER

vs.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

CORP., a New York Corporation,

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,

INC., a California Corporation & DOES 1

through 20,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint filed by Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (“Wells Fargo”). (Doc. #

27).

BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2009, Plaintiff Cynthia Garibay initiated this action by filing a Complaint.

(Doc. # 1).

On October 29, 2009, Defendant American Home Mortgage Corp. (“American”) filed

a “Suggestion of Bankruptcy” with this Court. (Doc. # 8). The Suggestion of Bankruptcy

notified the Court that on August 6, 2007, American filed a voluntary petition with the United

Case 3:09-cv-01460-WQH-CAB Document 28 Filed 09/02/10 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- 09cv1460-WQH-CAB

States Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware.

On November 13, 2009, the Court issued an Order staying this action as to Defendant

American only. (Doc. # 11).

On December 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 14).

On March 26, 2010, the Court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss the First

Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 20).

On July 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 26).

On July 26, 2010, Wells Fargo filed the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended

Complaint. (Doc. # 27).

DISCUSSION

A district court may properly grant an unopposed motion pursuant to a local rule where

the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1 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.” S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(a). “Although there is ... a [public] policy favoring

disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the moving party to move towards that

disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics.” In re Eisen,

31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for failure to

prosecute); see also Steel v. City of San Diego, No. 09cv1743, 2009 WL 3715257, at *1 (S.D.

Cal., Nov. 5, 2009) (dismissing action pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 for plaintiff’s failure to

respond to a motion to dismiss).

The docket reflects that Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, was served with the

Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss and the Court’s

docket reflect that the hearing date of the Motion to Dismiss was August 30, 2010. Civil Local

Rule 7.1 provides: “each party opposing a motion ... must file that opposition ... with the clerk

... not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.” S.D. Cal. Civ. Local

Rule 7.1(e)(2). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition. The

Case 3:09-cv-01460-WQH-CAB Document 28 Filed 09/02/10 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- 09cv1460-WQH-CAB

Court concludes that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s

need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendants” weigh in favor of

granting the Motion to Dismiss for failure to file an opposition. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint is GRANTED. (Doc. # 27). The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED

without prejudice as to Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively close

this case. This case shall be automatically reopened upon the dismissal of Defendant

American Home Mortgage Corp.’s bankruptcy petition or the filing of an order lifting the

bankruptcy stay. Defendant American Home Mortgage Corp. is ORDERED to notify the

Court in writing of any changes in the bankruptcy case relevant to this action, including but

not limited to a discharge or dismissal of the bankruptcy case. The Clerk of the Court shall

mail a copy of this Order to counsel for Defendant American Home Mortgage Corp., as listed

in the Suggestion of Bankruptcy. (Doc. # 8 at 2).

DATED: September 2, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01460-WQH-CAB Document 28 Filed 09/02/10 Page 3 of 3