Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02393/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02393-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONSO BORJA, SR. and

AVELINA BORJA,

NO. CIV. S-09-2393 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

O R D E R

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiffs bring claims against numerous defendants relating

to plaintiff’s home loan. On January 11, 2010, defendants

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Recontrust Company, N.A., filed

a motion to dismiss, which was noticed for hearing for February 22,

2010. (Dkt. No. 28). Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiffs

were obliged to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition

by February 8. Plaintiffs failed to file either document. On

March 2, the court issued an order continuing the hearing on the

motion to dismiss, ordering plaintiffs to file an opposition or

statement of non-opposition by March 15, and ordering plaintiffs’

Case 2:09-cv-02393-LKK -KJN Document 34 Filed 03/22/10 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

2

counsel to show cause by March 15 why sanctions should not issue

for failure to comply with the Local Rules, including dismissal

and/or $250. (Dkt. No. 32). This order cautioned plaintiffs’

counsel that the mere fact that counsel had chosen to represent

plaintiffs in a large number of similar cases was not good cause

for failing to comply with the local rules.

Plaintiffs filed a response to the order to show cause on

March 9. (Dkt. No. 33). This response contains no explanation as

to why plaintiffs failed to submit a timely opposition or statement

of non-opposition. Moreover, the extended deadline for filing an

opposition or statement of non-opposition has passed, and

plaintiffs still have not filed a response to the pending motion.

Thus, plaintiffs have violated, and remain in violation of, the

Local Rules and this court’s March 2 order.

The court may dismiss claims as a sanction for violation of

the Local Rules and court orders. Local Rule 110, Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). While public policy favors

resolution of cases on the merits, Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53,

plaintiffs have declined to offer any defense of the merits of

their claims, despite having two opportunities--and two months--to

do so. Plaintiffs’ actions have had the effect, if not the intent,

of needlessly drawing out this litigation and imposing costs upon

the defendants and the court. Plaintiffs’ blatant failure to

comply with the prior order in this case indicates that a lesser

sanction would be inadequate to ensure future diligence should this

case continue. Finally, the court warned plaintiffs of the

Case 2:09-cv-02393-LKK -KJN Document 34 Filed 03/22/10 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

3

possibility of dismissal in the March 2 order, and plaintiffs have

failed to show cause as to why dismissal is unwarranted.

The court notes that this is not the only case in which

plaintiffs’ counsel, Sharon Lapin, has failed to comply with the

Local Rules and this court’s orders. See, e.g., Mensah v. GMAC

Mortgage, No. 2:09-cv-3196, Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show

Cause (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2010). The sanctions issued here are the

result of misconduct in this case and the failure to cure that

misconduct when offered an opportunity to do so.

For these reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as a

sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local

Rule 230(c) and this court’s order of March 2, 2010.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), this dismissal shall

operate as an adjudication on the merits.

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel is SANCTIONED in the amount of two

hundred and fifty ($250.00) dollars for failure to

comply with Local Rule 230(c) and file an opposition or

statement of non-opposition by February 8, 2010. This

sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later

than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order.

Counsel shall file an affidavit accompanying the payment

of this sanction which states that it is paid personally

by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and will

not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or

in any way made the responsibility of the client as

Case 2:09-cv-02393-LKK -KJN Document 34 Filed 03/22/10 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

4

attorneys' fees or costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 19, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02393-LKK -KJN Document 34 Filed 03/22/10 Page 4 of 4