Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01522/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01522-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jay Boersma, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

BMO Harris Bank, N.A.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1522-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant BMO Harris Bank, N.A. has filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 10.

Defendant has also filed a motion for summary disposition. Doc. 15. For the reasons set

forth below, the Court will grant the motions.

I. Background. 

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint against Defendant in state court

on August 2, 2011. Defendant removed the action to this Court on August 4, 2011. Doc. 1.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on September 1, 2011 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 10. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint

with prejudice. Id.

II. Failure to Respond.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c), Plaintiff was required to file a response to the motion

by September 19, 2011. LRCiv 7.2(c); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Plaintiff has not responded

to the motion. The Court advised Plaintiff by order dated September 26, 2011 that Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-01522-DGC Document 16 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

must file a response to the motion to dismiss on or before October 7, 2011. Plaintiff failed

to respond to the motion to dismiss. 

Local Rule 7.2(i) provides that if a defendant files a motion to dismiss and the plaintiff

“does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may

be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the

motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). Before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or

follow a local rule, the Court must weigh five 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 defendant, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5)

the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.

1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The first two factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff was served with Defendant’s motion

on September 1, 2011. See Doc. 10 at 12. Plaintiff has had ample time to respond to the

motion, but has failed to do so. Because the Court and the public have a strong interest in

judicial efficiency and the prompt resolution of litigation, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this

action weighs in favor of dismissal. The risk of prejudice to Defendant also weighs in favor

of dismissal. Defendants forced to incur expenses and defend themselves in court are

prejudiced by a plaintiff’s failure to respond to motions or prosecute the case in a timely and

efficient manner. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. As for the fifth

factor, the Court concludes that a dismissal with prejudice would be unduly harsh. Dismissal

without prejudice is, however, an appropriate alternative sanction in light of Plaintiff’s

complete failure to prosecute this action since its removal to this Court. Because the overall

five-factor analysis favors dismissal, the Court will deem Plaintiff’s lack of response a

consent to the granting of Defendant’s motions. See LRCiv 7.2(i); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54

(holding that district court did not err in summarily granting the defendants’ motion to

dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed

to do so).

Case 2:11-cv-01522-DGC Document 16 Filed 10/24/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is granted. The claims against

Defendant are dismissed without prejudice.

2. Defendant’s motion for summary disposition (Doc. 15) is granted. 

3. The clerk is directed to vacate all pending hearings and terminate this

action.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01522-DGC Document 16 Filed 10/24/11 Page 3 of 3