Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02863/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02863-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 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 - 09cv2863

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILIANA DE LA TORRE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2863 DMS (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. 4] vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to

state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 4.) The matter is suitable

for submission without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1. 

Under Local Rule 7.1(f), failure to file a timely written opposition “may constitute a consent

to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” Civ. L. R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). Failure

to follow a district court’s local rule is a proper ground for dismissal. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States 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 in

federal court.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion, and the time

for doing so has expired. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Case 3:09-cv-02863-DMS-WVG Document 6 Filed 02/04/10 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 - 09cv2863

 Should Plaintiff elect to proceed with this case, she shall file an amended complaint no later

than March 15, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 4, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02863-DMS-WVG Document 6 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2