Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08263/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08263-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Raymond A Ribail, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bank of America NA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-08263-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 This case was filed on June 21, 2016, in the Southern District of New York. The 

case was transferred to the District of Arizona on November 10, 2016. On January 6, 

2017, Defendants moved to dismiss this case. The time to respond to this motion has 

expired and Plaintiff did not respond. All mail the Court has sent to Plaintiff since the 

November transfer has been returned as undeliverable. 

 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if an “unrepresented party or 

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

may dispose of the issue summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i). “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) (citing U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Although we construe 

pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” 

Id. at 54 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). “Before dismissing 

the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest 

Case 3:16-cv-08263-JAT Document 37 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 

risk of prejudice to the [party seeking dismissal]; (4) the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Id.

at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first 

two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth cuts 

against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability 

of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 The dismissal factors in this case are similar to those present in Ghazali. In that 

case, the Ninth Circuit upheld summary dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for the 

failure to follow a Nevada district court local rule. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The Nevada 

rule, like Local Rule 7.2(i), considered the failure to file a response to a motion to 

“constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” Id. (quoting D. Nev. R. 140-6). The 

Court reasoned that the dismissal was proper because the pro se plaintiff was bound by 

the rules of procedure, and was given notice of the motion and ample time to respond. Id.

at 54 (citing King, 814 F.2d at 567). 

 Here, this case has been pending for 7 months; therefore, expeditious resolution 

favors dismissal. Also, the Court’s need to manage its docket favors dismissal because 

the Court has no other management option because Plaintiff has failed to maintain a 

current address with the Court. The risk of prejudice favors dismissal as Defendants 

continue to incur attorney’s fees and record keeping costs even though this Court has no 

ability to move this case forward in any way other than dismissal. The public policy 

favoring merits resolutions weighs against dismissal. Finally, less drastic sanctions are 

unavailable because any order to show cause or other sanction would simply be taking a 

round trip through the mail. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 -1441 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Thus, four of the five factors favor dismissal. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-08263-JAT Document 37 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 35) is granted; this case is 

dismissed, Plaintiff shall take nothing, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 Dated this 13th day of February, 2017. 

 

Case 3:16-cv-08263-JAT Document 37 Filed 02/13/17 Page 3 of 3