Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00235/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00235-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 - 09cv235- IEG (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS M. ROSALES; GLORIA S.

ROSALES,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09-CV-235- IEG (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING THE

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 35]

vs.

THE MORTGAGE STORE FINANCIAL,

INC.; INDYMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES;

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; DOES

1-100 inclusive; COUNTRYWIDE

FINANCIAL CORPORATION;

COUNTRYWIDE BANK, F.S.B.;

RECONSTRUST COMPANY; INDYMAC

BANK, F.S.B.; FEDERAL DEPOSIT

INSURANCE CORPORATION; FEDERAL

DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

CONSERVATOR FROM INDYMAC

FEDERAL BANK, F.S.B.; ONE WEST

BANK, F.S.B.; IMB HOLD CO., LLC; IMB

MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS, L.P.; BANK

OF AMERICA CORPORATION; ANGELO

MOZILO; DAVID SAMBOL;

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,

Defendants.

This matter involves a nonjudicial foreclosure on Plaintiffs’ real property following the

nonpayment of a secured loan. On March 23, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a 313-page First Amended

Complaint, alleging sixty-one causes of action ranging from RICO violations to actions under the Ku

Case 3:09-cv-00235-IEG-JMA Document 44 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 4
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

 Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides, in its entirety:

Waiver: 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.

- 2 - 09cv235- IEG (JMA)

Klux Klan Act of 1871. [Doc. No. 14]. Finding the First Amended Complaint to be “repetitious and

needlessly long,” the Court dismissed it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) on June 16, 2009, granting

Plaintiffs leave to amend. [Doc. No. 30]. On June 30, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an 80-page Second

Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 31].

The Second Amended Complaint alleges sixteen causes of action against as many defendants.

On August 31, 2009, the case was dismissed as to Defendants Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Conservator for Indymac Federal Bank, F.S.B. pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for lack of prosecution. [Doc. Nos. 39, 40]. On October 5, 2009, the case was

also dismissed as to Defendants Mortgage Store Financial, Inc., One West Bank, IMB Hold Co, LLC,

IMB Management Holdings, LP, Angelo Mozilo, and David Sambol. [Doc. Nos. 42, 43].

Currently before the Court is Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Bank, F.S.B., Recontrust Company,

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Bank of America, N.A. (“Moving Defendants”).

[Doc. No. 35]. The motion was filed on July 31, 2009, and the hearing on the motion was scheduled

for September 28, 2009. On September 23, 2009, not having received any written opposition or

statement of non-opposition from Plaintiffs, the Court vacated the hearing and ordered Plaintiffs to

respond to Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by October 13, 2009, or risk having their entire

case dismissed with prejudice. [Doc. No. 41]. To date, no response has been filed.

DISCUSSION

Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) provides that a party opposing a motion shall file a written

opposition or a statement of non-opposition “not later than 14 calendar days prior to the noticed

hearing.” CIV.L.R.7.1(e)(2) (emphasis in original); see also id. 7.1(f)(3)(a). If the opposing party fails

to respond, “that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” Id. 7.1(f)(3)(c).1

In the present case, Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to Moving Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), nor did they take any action with regard to this

Case 3:09-cv-00235-IEG-JMA Document 44 Filed 10/16/09 Page 2 of 4
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

 Because Plaintiffs in the present case have been given a prior warning that their case will be

dismissed if no response was forthcoming, the Court need not articulate any additional reasons. See

Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). However, to the extent that Ghazali, 46 F.3d

at 53, might require an analysis of the factors set forth there, the Court notes that this district’s heavy

criminal caseload heightens the need for the court to actively manage its civil docket. In the present

case, the Court finds that the public’s interest supports dismissal of the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel is

notorious for filing gargantuan complaints and then failing to respond to any motions to dismiss that

are filed. See, e.g., Uribe, et al. v. Countrywide Financial, et al., No. 08cv1982 L (NLS), 2009 WL

1953413, at *3 n.2 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2009) (citing similar cases where Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to

respond to motions to dismiss). The Court also notes that, despite having already been amended twice,

the Second Amended Complaint still fails to meet federal pleading standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

- 3 - 09cv235- IEG (JMA)

Court’s express order directing them to respond. “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a

proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citation

omitted). Moreover, dismissal is also an appropriate sanction for a party’s failure to comply with a

court order. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (“District courts

have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power they may impose

sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case.” (citation omitted)).

Here, the Court expressly warned Plaintiffs that “a failure to comply with [its] order will result

in dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

[Doc. No. 41]. Seeing as no response has been filed, the Court hereby DISMISSES with prejudice

the Second Amended Complaint as to the Moving Defendants as well as any other remaining

Defendants.2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the unopposed Motion to Dismiss and orders

that the entire case be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is ordered to close this civil action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-00235-IEG-JMA Document 44 Filed 10/16/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 09cv235- IEG (JMA)

Case 3:09-cv-00235-IEG-JMA Document 44 Filed 10/16/09 Page 4 of 4