Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01532/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01532-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 12:1461 Homeowners Loan 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 - 11cv1532-WQH-WVG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADELIDIA CORTEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1532-WQH-WVG

ORDER

vs.

ING BANK, FSB; INTERGRATED

LENDER SERVICES; all persons

unknown claiming to have legal,

equitable, lien, and estate against the

subject property located at 1503 Dubuque

Street, Oceanside, CA 92058; DOES 1 to

50 inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant ING Bank,

FSB (“ING Bank”). (ECF No. 4).

BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint

in San Diego County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A).

On July 12, 2011, ING Bank removed the action to this Court, alleging federal question

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1).

On July 27, 2011, ING Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 4).

DISCUSSION

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

the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See

Case 3:11-cv-01532-WQH-WVG Document 6 Filed 09/13/11 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 - 11cv1532-WQH-WVG

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

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.f.3.a. “Although there is ... a [public] policy favoring

disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the 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) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for failure to

prosecute); see also Steel v. City of San Diego, No. 09cv1743, 2009 WL 3715257, at *1 (S.D.

Cal., Nov. 5, 2009) (dismissing action pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 for plaintiff’s failure to

respond to a motion to dismiss).

The Motion to Dismiss contains a proof of service indicating that Plaintiff was served

with the Motion to Dismiss and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 5). The Motion to Dismiss and the Court’s docket reflect that

the hearing for the Motion to Dismiss was noticed for August 29, 2011. 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 of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition. 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 defendant” weigh in favor of granting

the Motion to Dismiss for failure to file an opposition. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 4).

The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant ING Bank, FSB.

DATED: September 13, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01532-WQH-WVG Document 6 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 2