Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00003/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a)rp 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA LAREYBI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv0003-GPC(WVG)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Dkt. No. 5.]

v.

The Bank of New York Mellon, FKA

The Bank of New York as Trustee for

16 the Certificateholders of the

CWALT,Inc. Alternative Trust

2006-0A12 Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-0A12; Bay

View Loan Servicing, LLC; Law

Offices of Les Zieve, as Trustee; Doe

# 1, and DOES 2 through 10,

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

On March 7, 2017, Defendants The Bank of New York Mellon; Bay View Loan

Servicing, LLC; and Law Offices of Les Zieve filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. 

(Dkt. No. 5.) The Court set a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiff to file a response by

April 21, 2017. (Dkt. No. 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition

or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing.

Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a

motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and

apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local

- 1 - [17cv0003-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:17-cv-00003-GPC-WVG Document 8 Filed 05/17/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an

unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to

oppose as consent to granting the motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474

(9th Cir. 1979). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the

district court “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

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

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)).

Here, the 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 based on Plaintiff’s

failure to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The majority of these factors

weigh in favor of dismissal. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, the Court

finds good cause to grant Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss. The Court’s

docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the motions and the Court’s

briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss

as unopposed. See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

currently set for May 26, 2017 is VACATED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. 

DATED: May 17, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - [17cv0003-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:17-cv-00003-GPC-WVG Document 8 Filed 05/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2