Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02530/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02530-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 12:1819 Default of Promissory Note

---

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

JOSE DIAZ and TERESA DIAZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK

NATIONAL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv2530 L (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING JPMORGAN

CHASE BANK, N.A.’S MOTION TO

DISMISS [doc. #5]

On March 5, 2012, defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. filed a motion to dismiss the

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See CIV. L.R. 7.1.e.2. The motion is set for hearing on April 23,

2012. Under the Civil Local Rules, plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s motion was due on or

before April 9, 2012. See CIV. L.R. 7.1.e.2. But plaintiffs have not opposed the motion nor have

they sought additional time in which to respond to the motion to dismiss.

Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides that "[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the

manner required by Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of

that motion or other ruling by the court." When an opposing party receives notice under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b) and is given sufficient time to respond to a motion to dismiss, the

Court may grant the motion based on failure to comply with a local rule. See generally Ghazali

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file

11cv2530

Case 3:11-cv-02530-L-BLM Document 12 Filed 04/16/12 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

timely opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond).

Here, plaintiffs were properly served with defendant’s motion, which was filed on March

5, 2012, and therefore they had five weeks to oppose the motion. Because the motion to dismiss

is unopposed, and relying on Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c), the Court deems plaintiffs’ failure to

oppose defendant’s motion as consent to granting it.

The Court notes that the only other defendant that has been served, the FDIC, was

dismissed on January 3, 2012. [doc. #4]. Because the time for service of process on the other

named defendants has past and no extension of time for service has been requested, the Court

will dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint is

GRANTED;

2. The unserved named defendants are DISMISSED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 16, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. BARBARA L. MAJOR

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

2 11cv2530

Case 3:11-cv-02530-L-BLM Document 12 Filed 04/16/12 Page 2 of 2