Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05304/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05304-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

GUILLERMO DAMIAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY, et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-5304 SBA 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Docket No. 6 

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint. 

The motion is unopposed. Having read and considered the papers submitted in connection with 

these matters, and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss for the 

reasons set forth below. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), the Court adjudicates 

this matter without oral argument. 

I. BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2009, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a mortgage fraud action in state court 

against Defendants, Long Beach Mortgage Company, Washington Mutual, Inc., JPMorgan Chase 

National Association, California Reconveyance Company and Deutsche Bank National Trust 

Company. The Complaint alleges various claims under California law. On November 6, 2009, 

Defendants removed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the ground that certain of Plaintiff’s 

causes of action are predicated upon the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 26 U.S.C. 

§ 2605, et seq., and the Fair Debt Collections Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. On November 13, 2009, 

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6), which they noticed for hearing on February 9, 2010. To date, no opposition has been 

filed nor has the Court received any other communication from Plaintiff. 

Case 4:09-cv-05304-SBA Document 9 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

II. DISCUSSION

The Ninth Circuit has held that the failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss in 

accordance with the district court’s local rules is grounds for granting the motion. Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit held 

that in exercising its discretion to dismiss an action for failing to comply with a district court’s 

local rules, the court is “required to weigh several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986)); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). Upon balancing the Ghazali factors under the facts of 

this case, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted. 

 The first and second factors both favor dismissal. Under Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff was 

obligated to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion by January 19, 2010 (i.e., 21 days prior to 

the hearing on the motion). In contravention of the Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiff failed to respond 

to the motion, which inherently delays resolution of the case and insures to the detriment of the 

public. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It is incumbent upon the 

Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants[.]”); 

Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing court’s need to 

control its own docket); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (noncompliance with a court’s order diverts “valuable time that [the court] could have devoted to other 

major and serious criminal and civil cases on its docket.”). 

 The third factor, the risk of prejudice to Defendants, is related to the strength of the 

plaintiff’s excuse for the default, if any. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Here, Plaintiff has offered 

no “excuse” for his non-compliance, nor is any apparent from the record. Given that Defendants 

filed their motion over two months ago, Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to prepare and file a 

response to the motion. These facts also weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. See Yourish, 191 

F.3d at 991; Ghazali, 46 F.3d. at 54. 

Case 4:09-cv-05304-SBA Document 9 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

 The fourth factor favoring disposition of cases on the merits, by definition, weighs against 

dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. 

Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”) 

 Finally, the Court has considered less drastic alternatives to dismissal. The Court’s 

Standing Orders warn that as a consequence of a party’s failure to oppose a motion, the Court will 

construe such inaction as a consent to the granting of the motion. “[A] district court’s warning to a 

party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of 

[less drastic sanctions]’ requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 

653 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We conclude that because Brydges was warned of the consequence of his 

failure to respond to the appellees’ summary judgment motion, the district court did not err by 

deeming his failure to respond a consent to the motion for summary judgment.”). 

III. CONCLUSION

Weighing the relevant factors, the Court exercises its discretion and grants Defendants’ 

unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b). For the reasons stated above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 1, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-05304-SBA Document 9 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GUILLERMO DAMIAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-05304 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on February 1, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Guillermo Damian 

2160 El Lago Drive 

Oakley, CA 94561 

Dated: February 1, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 

Case 4:09-cv-05304-SBA Document 9 Filed 02/01/10 Page 4 of 4