Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00003/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332fc Diversity - Foreclosure

---

-1- 18cv0003-MMA (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 

JENA KEARNS; JONE RODLEY; and

THE RODLEY FAMILY TRUST, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK; WELLS 

FARGO ESCROW; FIRST AMERICAN 

LOAN STAR TRUSTEE SERVICES, 

LLC; and TIM PEARCE, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv0003-MMA (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

WELLS FARGO BANK’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 4] 

Plaintiffs Jena Kearns, Jone Rodley, and The Rodley Family Trust (collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action in the Superior Court of the State of California for 

the County of San Diego on October 3, 2017. See Doc. No. 1-2. On January 2, 2018, 

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), also erroneously sued separately as 

Wells Fargo Escrow, removed the instant action to this Court. See Doc. No. 1. On 

January 9, 2018, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to 

state a claim and for failure to plead fraud with particularity. See Doc. No. 4. On 

February 5, 2018, Plaintiff Jone Rodley filed an ex parte motion requesting a sixty (60) 

day extension to file an opposition to Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 9. 

Case 3:18-cv-00003-MMA-JLB Document 14 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 -2- 18cv0003-MMA (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

The Court granted in part Jone Rodley’s motion, and set a special briefing schedule. See 

Doc. No. 10. The Court indicated that Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss, if 

any, must be filed on or before February 28, 2018. See id. To date, Plaintiffs have not 

filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition in response to Wells Fargo’s motion to 

dismiss, nor have Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 

Moreover, on March 2, 2018, Wells Fargo filed a notice of non-receipt of opposition to 

its motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs have not responded to. See Doc. No. 12. 

 The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed 

motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not 

require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides that “[i]f an opposing 

party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that 

failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by 

the court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendant’s motion on the basis 

of Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose, and it chooses to do so.1

 

 Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See, e.g., 

Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case 

cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend 

his or her complaint against a Rule 12 motion. Thus, this policy lends little support to a 

party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose 

conduct impedes or completely prevents progress in that direction. See In re Eisen, 31 

F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994). In addition, the Court finds dismissal of Plaintiffs’ 

claims as to Wells Fargo pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c serves to facilitate the 

management of its docket. 

                                               

1

 The Court also notes that Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the provisions of Civil Local Rule 

7.1.e.2 constitutes a technical failure to comply with the provisions of the Local Rules of this Court, 

which serves as an additional ground for dismissal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 41.1.b. 

Case 3:18-cv-00003-MMA-JLB Document 14 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 -3- 18cv0003-MMA (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

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Wells Fargo’s unopposed motion and 

DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims against Wells Fargo without prejudice.2

 The Clerk of 

Court is instructed to terminate this action as to Wells Fargo. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2018

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

                                               

2

 As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Wells Fargo’s Request for Judicial Notice. See Doc. 

No. 5. 

Case 3:18-cv-00003-MMA-JLB Document 14 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3