Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00183/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00183-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition to Quiet Title

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MARIA ALICIA JIMENEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-183-FRZ-CRP

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, filed a Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings on May 24, 2010. (Doc. 11). Under the local rules, Plaintiff had until June 7,

2010 to file a response. L.R.Civ. 7.2. Plaintiff did not respond to this motion in the allotted

time period. On July 19, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion to Summarily Grant Defendant’s

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 12). In its motion, Defendant states it gave

Plaintiff two courtesy extensions to file a response, extending the initial deadline to July 15,

2010. (Doc. 12, p. 2). The Court notes neither party filed a stipulation or motion to extend

the time to respond to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Despite the informal

extensions agreed to by Defendant, Plaintiff still failed to file a response. (Id.). A response

to Defendant’s Motion to Summarily Grant Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings was due on or before August 2, 2010. Plaintiff also failed to respond to this

motion in the required period. 

Case 4:10-cv-00183-FRZ Document 13 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

The Court may deem Plaintiff’s failure to respond as consent to granting Defendant’s

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Local Rule 7.2(i) states “if the unrepresented party

or counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court

may dispose of the motion summarily.” 

Plaintiff was given two informal extensions to respond to Defendant’s Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings and then given an opportunity to respond to Defendant’s Motion

to Summarily Grant Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff has not

responded to either motion.

Recommendation

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent analysis,

GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Summarily Grant Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings (Doc. 12) and therefore, GRANT summarily Defendant’s Motion for Judgment

on the Pleadings (Doc. 11). Granting the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will result

in dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. If

objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any

objections filed are to be identified with the following case number: CV 10-183-FRZ.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2010.

Case 4:10-cv-00183-FRZ Document 13 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 2