Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00792-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition to Quiet Title

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-00792-LHK

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BROCK WILLIAMS and SYLVIA 

WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-00792-LHK

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, AND 

DENYING REQUESTS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

I. BACKGROUND

On January 14, 2015, Plaintiffs Brock Williams and Sylvia Williams (“Plaintiffs”), with 

the assistance of counsel, brought suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court to quiet title against 

defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for 

Resident Accredit Loans Inc. Series 2006 QS2 (“U.S. Bank”) (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF 

No. 1-1. On February 20, 2015, BANA removed the instant lawsuit to federal court. ECF No. 1.

The sole basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction asserted in BANA’s Notice of Removal was 

diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. at 2-4. With respect to U.S. Bank, the Notice 

of Removal stated:

Case 5:15-cv-00792-LHK Document 24 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 15-CV-00792-LHK

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

BANA is unaware of whether Plaintiffs have served U.S. Bank with the Summons 

and Complaint. While BANA has not yet been able to communicate with U.S. 

Bank or its counsel to obtain its consent to removal, BANA anticipates that U.S. 

Bank will have no opposition to the removal.

Id. at 2.

On February 27, 2015, BANA filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for 

failure to state a claim. ECF No. 8. A hearing on that motion was set for July 16, 2015, at 1:30 

p.m. ECF No. 14. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to 

Dismiss was due on March 13, 2015. On March 19, 2015, BANA filed a Reply indicating that 

“BANA has not received any opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.” ECF No. 15 at 1. However,

on March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the instant lawsuit to state court. ECF 

No. 16. BANA opposed the motion on April 3, 2015. ECF No. 18. Plaintiffs did not file a Reply.

On April 24, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, finding that BANA had 

shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were

satisfied. ECF No. 21 at 4-6. Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose BANA’s Motion to Dismiss and 

failure to file a Reply in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, the Court also issued an Order 

for Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. at 

6. The Court set a hearing on the Order to Show Cause for May 21, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. Id.

On May 1, 2015, U.S. Bank filed its own Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). ECF 

No. 22. That motion, also set for hearing on July 16, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., did not expressly indicate 

whether U.S. Bank had joined BANA’s Notice of Removal. Cf. id. at 2 n.2 (U.S. Bank joining 

BANA’s request for judicial notice).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Order to Show Cause/Motions to Dismiss

Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs filed a response on May 5, 2015. 

ECF No. 23. In that response, Plaintiffs advanced three reasons for their failure to oppose

Case 5:15-cv-00792-LHK Document 24 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 15-CV-00792-LHK

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

BANA’s Motion to Dismiss: (1) Plaintiffs’ counsel did not receive BANA’s Motion to Dismiss 

until after the March 13, 2015 deadline for filing an Opposition due to a purported “glitch” in the

ECF system; (2) Plaintiffs’ counsel believed that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand “would override”

BANA’s pending Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Plaintiffs’ counsel believed BANA’s Motion to 

Dismiss to be “not meritorious” and elected to “let the Court decide [the motion] based on the 

pleadings as they stand.” Id. at 2. While the Court appreciates Plaintiffs’ counsel’s concern that 

responding to BANA’s Motion to Dismiss would have “incur[red] additional costs” to his client, 

id. at 3, the Court’s Civil Local Rules require that a plaintiff either oppose a Rule 12(b)(6) motion

or file a Statement of Nonopposition, see Civ. L. R. 7-3(a)-(b). In this circuit, a plaintiff’s failure 

to comply with a district court’s local rules is grounds for dismissal for failure to prosecute. See, 

e.g., Tounget v. Cnty. of Riverside, 520 F. App’x 556, 557 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court did not 

abuse its discretion in dismissing action without prejudice because plaintiff had failed to oppose 

defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to 

follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); Villegas v. Harris, No. 

5:14-CV-00718 EJD, 2015 WL 537562, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2015) (“A plaintiff’s failure to 

file an opposition to a motion to dismiss as required by this district’s local rules can constitute 

grounds for dismissal under Rule 41(b).”). Even if Plaintiffs or their counsel believe that an

opposing party’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion lacks merit, going forward Plaintiffs are advised to comply 

with the Court’s local rules and file a written response explaining why they believe that to be the 

case.

1

In light of the foregoing, the Court declines to dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuit for failure to 

prosecute and hereby VACATES the hearing on the Order to Show Cause set for May 21, 2015, at 

1:30 p.m. However, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court hereby GRANTS BANA’s

 

1

The Court also notes that although Plaintiffs allude in their Motion to Remand to the fact 

that BANA had filed a dismissal motion, see ECF No. 16 at 2 (“Now is not the time to determine 

the merits of Defendants’ dismissal arguments.”), Plaintiffs never offer any explanation in their 

Motion to Remand as to why Plaintiffs failed to oppose or otherwise respond to BANA’s motion. 

There is no mention, for example, of the alleged computer glitch.

Case 5:15-cv-00792-LHK Document 24 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 15-CV-00792-LHK

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend and VACATES the hearing on BANA’s Motion to 

Dismiss set for July 16, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. As the Court is allowing Plaintiffs to file an amended 

Complaint, the Court hereby DENIES as moot U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss and VACATES the 

hearing on U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss set for July 16, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. The initial case 

management conference set for that date and time remains as set.

Plaintiffs are hereby on notice of the alleged deficiencies with their Complaint that 

Defendants have identified in their Motions to Dismiss. See ECF Nos. 8, 22. Should Plaintiffs 

elect to file an amended Complaint, Plaintiffs shall do so within thirty (30) days of the date of this 

Order. Failure to meet the thirty-day deadline to file an amended Complaint or failure to cure the 

deficiencies identified by Defendants in their Motions to Dismiss will result in a dismissal with

prejudice of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs may not add new causes of action or parties without 

leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

B. Requests for Reconsideration

Furthermore, Plaintiffs have asked the Court to reconsider its ruling denying Plaintiffs’

Motion to Remand and request for fees and costs. ECF No. 23 at 7-9. The Court will treat 

Plaintiffs’ requests as a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-9, which provides three grounds for reconsideration of an interlocutory order:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law

exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory 

order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the 

exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not 

know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time 

of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

Whether to grant leave to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound discretion. See 

Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.-USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014).

Case 5:15-cv-00792-LHK Document 24 Filed 05/05/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 15-CV-00792-LHK

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ submissions, applicable law, and the record in this case, the 

Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ requests because Plaintiffs have made no showing that any of 

the three bases for reconsideration has been satisfied. For the reasons stated in the Court’s order 

denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, BANA has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 

(1) there is complete diversity among the parties and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. ECF No. 21 at 4-6. Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise. 

What arguments Plaintiffs do make go to the merits of their quiet title action. See ECF No. 23.

C. Joinder in Removal

Lastly, it is well established that 28 U.S.C. § 1446 “requires all proper defendants to join 

or consent to the removal notice.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th 

Cir. 1999); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a 

notice of removal . . . .”). Although U.S. Bank’s filing of a dismissal motion suggests that it

consents to this Court’s removal jurisdiction, U.S. Bank has never formally joined BANA’s 

Notice of Removal. Consequently, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to file a statement 

within seven (7) days of the date of this Order indicating whether U.S. Bank joins in BANA’s 

Notice of Removal. See Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If [all 

defendants have not joined in removal] when the notice of removal is filed, the district court may 

allow the removing defendants to cure the defect by obtaining joinder of all defendants prior to the 

entry of judgment.”). Doing so is proper because, as the Ninth Circuit has explained, “a 

procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not 

warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court.” Parrino, 146 F.3d at 703; accord

Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2002).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00792-LHK Document 24 Filed 05/05/15 Page 5 of 5