Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01947/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01947-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anita Calugay, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GMAC Mortgage; GMAC; and Green

Tree Services, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1947-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises on Defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC’s (“Green Tree”)

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P, filed on October 9, 2009. (

docket #7) Despite fair warning that pro se Plaintiff must file a timely response or her

Complaint may be dismissed, docket # 11, no response has been filed in opposition to

Defendant Green Tree’s Motion. Plaintiff and Defendant Green Tree have expressly

consented in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (docket

## 6, 10) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

Generally, a plaintiff’s failure to oppose a motion is deemed to be her consent

to it being granted. LRCiv 7.2(i); Garcia v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 2009 WL 2782791, at

* 1 (D.Ariz. 2009) (“If an argument is not properly argued and explained, the argument is

waived.”) (citing LRCiv 7.2(i), (b), (c)); Doe v. Dickenson, 2008 WL 4933964 at *5 (D.Ariz.

2008) (“[t]he Court is entitled to treat Plaintiffs’ failure to respond as waiver of the issue and

Case 2:09-cv-01947-LOA Document 13 Filed 11/18/09 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 -

consent to Defendants argument.) (citing LRCiv 7.2(i), (b), (c); Currie v. Maricopa County

Cmty. College Dist., 2008 WL 2512841, at * 2 n.1 (D.Ariz. 2008) (“Plaintiff does not

respond to this argument, and her failure to do so serves as an independent basis upon which

to grant [the] motion[.]”); E.E.O.C. v. Eagle Produce, L.L.C., 2008 WL 2796407, at * 2

(D.Ariz. 2008) (“Parties must come forward with their points and authorities in support of

or in opposition to a motion.”). “In its discretion, however, the Court will also evaluate the

merits of Defendants’ challenge.” Doe, 2008 WL 4933964 at *5 (citing LRCiv 7.2(i)

(“[N]on-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion[.]”)

(emphasis in original).

Independently reviewing the merits of Defendant’s Motion, it is well-taken.

There is not a single specific allegation in the Complaint directed to Defendant Green Tree.

Other than conclusory claims against “Defendants and each of them” and offering the bare

conclusion each Defendant was the agent and employee of the other, the Complaint fails to

set forth sufficiently specific allegations against Defendant Green Tree as required by Rule

8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., to put Defendant Green Tree on notice of the claims against it. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. While Rule

8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. In other words, “a plaintiff's obligation to

provide the ‘grounds’ of [her] ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the

assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (citations and emphasis omitted). The Complaint

fails to state any claims against Green Tree upon which relief can be granted. 

Case 2:09-cv-01947-LOA Document 13 Filed 11/18/09 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 -

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520-21 (1972), a pro se plaintiff must still satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[p]ro se

litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). See also

Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that pro se litigants

should not be treated more favorably than parties represented by attorneys). Because Plaintiff

has not requested leave to file an amended complaint and filing an amended complaint

would likely be futile regarding Defendant Green Tree, likely a loan or mortgage servicer,

Diessner v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 618 F.Supp.2d 1184, 1187 (D.Ariz. 2009);

Mansour v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., 618 F.Supp.2d 1178 (D.Ariz. 2009), the

Court will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC’s Motion to

Dismiss, docket #7, is GRANTED and hereby dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint against

Defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC only with prejudice.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01947-LOA Document 13 Filed 11/18/09 Page 3 of 3