Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02939/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02939-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Notice of Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

16cv2939-JLS (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA KING SCHIAVONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. AS TRUSTEE 

FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION 

TRUST; CALIBER HOME LOANS, 

INC.; SUMMIT MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, LLC; AND Does 1–100 

Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2939-JLS (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 12)

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint

(“MTD”). (ECF No. 12.) Defendants previously moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, 

(ECF No. 6), which the Court granted due to Plaintiff’s failure to oppose, (ECF No. 10; 

see also ECF No. 9). Despite Plaintiff’s failure to oppose, the Court granted Plaintiff leave 

to amend her Complaint within fourteen days. (ECF No. 10.) On the fourteenth day, 

Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) Defendants have again moved to 

dismiss, (ECF No. 12), and Plaintiff has again failed to oppose, (see ECF No. 14).

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02939-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cv2939-JLS (JLB)

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

Given the foregoing, the Court again GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and 

this time does so WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s non-responsiveness in opposing these 

motions, but precise timing in filing her Amended Complaint, indicates that Defendants 

are likely correct that “Plaintiff’s action represents nothing more than a baseless attempt to 

delay foreclosure by any means necessary.” (MTD 1.) Furthermore, our district’s civil local 

rules explicitly provide that failure “to file . . . papers in the manner required . . . may 

constitute a consent to the granting of the motion . . . .” (Civ. L.R. 7.1.f.3.c.) “Failure to 

follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). And in the present case Plaintiff should have been aware of 

this rule; the Court cited it in its prior dismissal Order. (ECF No. 10.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02939-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 04/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2