Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02585/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02585-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

NEIL S. PHILLIPS; YVONNE M.

PHILLIPS

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN; et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2585-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On December 10, 2009 Plaintiffs Neil S. Phillips and Yvonne M. Phillips

(“Plaintiffs”) filed a pro se Complaint against multiple defendants alleging violations of both

federal and state law. (Dkt. # 1.) Shortly thereafter, on January 22, 2010, Defendant Quality

Loan Service Corporation (“Quality”) moved to be dismissed from this action pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. # 15.) Quality argues that Plaintiffs’

Complaint fails to explain how Quality is involved in this action and does not identify any

facts supporting the claims against Quality. (Id. at 1–2.)

Plaintiffs have failed to file a response to Quality’s Motion. Local Rule 7.2(c)

provides that “[t]he opposing party shall . . . have fourteen (14) days after service in a civil

or criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum” to a defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss. As of March 1, 2010, Plaintiffs have not filed a timely responsive

memoranda to the Motion to Dismiss, nor have they sought extensions of time to do so.

Case 2:09-cv-02585-GMS Document 25 Filed 03/01/10 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

- 2 -

Under the Local Rules, if a party “does not serve and file the required answering memoranda

. . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the

Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46

F.3d 52, 53– 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in

summarily granting defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se

plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file and serve a responsive

memorandum to Quality’s Motion (Dkt. # 15) on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2010.

Should Plaintiffs fail to comply, the Court may deem Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the Motion

as a waiver, and may grant the motion on that basis. 

DATED this 1st day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02585-GMS Document 25 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2