Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00983/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00983-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MARCUS ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-cv-983-MMA (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 18]

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AZTEC

FORECLOSURE CORPORATION, PHH

MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ROBERT

E. WEISS INCORPORATED, DOES 1

THROUGH 100,

Defendants.

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Bank of America, N.A. and PHH Mortgage

Corporation’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Marcus Robinson’s complaint in the above-captioned

foreclosure action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [Doc. No. 18.] The

motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion and

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from events surrounding the foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff’s

property, located at 2628 Secret Lake Lane, Fallbrook, CA 92028. On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff

Marcus Robinson, proceeding pro se, filed this foreclosure action against Defendants Bank of

America, N.A. (“BOA”), Aztec Foreclosure Corporation (“Aztec”), PHH Mortgage Corporation

(“PHH”), and Robert E. Weiss Incorporated (“Weiss”). [Doc. No. 1.] On May 8, 2012, Defendant

- 1 - 12cv983

Case 3:12-cv-00983-MMA-NLS Document 21 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 3
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

Aztec filed a Declaration of Non-Monetary Status [Doc. No. 6]; on July 25, 2012, the Court sua

sponte dismissed all claims against Defendant Weiss [Doc. No. 17]. On August 7, 2012,

Defendants BOA and PHH filed the pending motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. [Doc. No.

18.] Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a viable claim for relief.

Approximately eight weeks have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition. 

Thus, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is unopposed.

II. DISCUSSION

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 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Southern District of California Civil Local

Rule 7.1 provides: “If 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.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 7.1(f)(3)(a). “Although there is . . . a [public]

policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the moving party to move

towards that disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics.” In

re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for failure to

prosecute); see also Dipp v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75696 (S.D.

Cal. May 31, 2012) (Battaglia, J.) (dismissing action pursuant to local Rule 7.1 for plaintiff’s

failure to respond to a motion to dismiss); Yueh Chen v. PMC Bancorp, No. 09-CV-2405-WQH

(BLM), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75468 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2010) (Hayes, J.) (same); Steel v. City of

San Diego, No. 09-CV-1743-MMA (WVG), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103042 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5,

2009) (Anello, J.) (same).

The docket reflects that Plaintiff was properly served by mail with the motion to dismiss on

August 7, 2012. [Doc. No. 18-2, p. 2 of 4.] The motion was originally noticed for hearing on

October 9, but was later rescheduled to October 15. Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: “each party

opposing a motion . . . must file that opposition . . . with the clerk . . . not later than fourteen (14)

calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 7.1(e)(2). Thus, the opposition to

Defendants’ motion was due October 1. Plaintiff, however, failed to file an opposition despite

- 2 - 12cv983

Case 3:12-cv-00983-MMA-NLS Document 21 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 3
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

having a span of approximately 8 weeks between the motion notice and the hearing date. Further,

to date, Plaintiff has not sought leave of the Court to file an untimely opposition. The Court

concludes that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need to

manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendants” weigh in favor of granting the

motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53;

see also Dipp, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 756696, at *3-5.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES

Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv983

Case 3:12-cv-00983-MMA-NLS Document 21 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 3