Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00272/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00272-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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 

FILED 

12JUN-4 AHII= to 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GEORGE A W AD, CASE NO. 12cv0272-WQH-WVG 

vs. 

CAPITAL ONE, N.A., 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

Defendant. 

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by Defendant 

Capital One, N.A. (ECF No.7). 

I. Background 

On December 27, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint in the 

Superior Court ofCalifornia for the County of San Diego. (ECF No.1 at 7). On February 2, 

2012, Defendant removed the action to this Court, alleging federal question jurisdiction. (ECF 

No. 1). 

On March 1, 2012, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss, seeking the dismissal of all 

claims against Defendant in the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 

(b)(6). (ECF No.7). Defendant contends that: (1) Plaintiffs Fair Credit Reporting Act 

("FCRA") claim should be dismissed for failure to allege sufficient facts and because the 

FCRA does not provide a private right of action; (2) Plaintiffs claim under the California 

Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act should be dismissed because it is preempted by the 

FCRA; and (3) Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support a claim of Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act violations. 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 

- 1 - 12cv0272-WQH-WVG 

Case 3:12-cv-00272-WQH-WVG Document 9 Filed 06/04/12 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 

II. 	 Discussion 

A district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to a local 

rule where the local rule pennits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to 

respond. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: 

"Ifan 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." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(t)(3)(a). "Although there is ... a [public] policy 

favoring disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility ofthe moving party to move towards 

that disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics." In re 

Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (affinning grant ofmotion to dismiss for failure to 

prosecute); see also Steel v. City ofSan Diego, No. 09cv1743, 2009 WL 3715257, at 

*1 (S.D. 

Cal., Nov. 5, 2009) (dismissing action pursuant to local Rule 7.1 for plaintiffs failure to 

respond to a motion to dismiss). 

The docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with the Motion to Dismiss. The Motion 

and the Court's docket reflect that the hearing for the Motion to Dismiss was noticed for April 

9, 2012. Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: "each party opposing a motion ... must file that 

opposition ... with the clerk ... not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed 

hearing." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7. 1 (e)(2). As ofthe date ofthis Order, Plaintiffs have 

failed to file an opposition. The Court concludes that "the public's interest in expeditious 

resolution oflitigation," ''the court's need to manage its docket," and ''the risk ofprejudice to 

the defendants" weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss for failure to file an 

opposition. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

III. 	 Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Capital One, 

N.A. (ECF No.7) is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DATED: 

- 2 -	 12cv0272·WQH·WVG 

Case 3:12-cv-00272-WQH-WVG Document 9 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 2