Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01591/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01591-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Notice of Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

18cv1591-AJB-BLM

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

GLENN CASTILLO, NANET 

CASTILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, 

INC., FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, JP MORGAN 

CHASE BANK, N.A., U.S. BANK, N.A.,

Successor to Bank of America, N.A.,

Successor in Interest to LASALLE BANK 

N.A., as Trustee on behalf of WAMU 

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, 

Series 2006-AR, and Certain Mortgagors, 

and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1591-AJB-BLM

ORDER REQUESTING PLAINTIFFS

TO FILE OPPOSITIONS TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS

Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Select 

Portfolio Servicing, Inc., First American Title Insurance Company, JP Morgan Chase 

Bank, U.S. Bank, successor to Bank of America, successor in interest to LaSalle Bank, as 

Trustee on behalf of WAMU mortgage pass-through certificates, Series 2006-AR and 

certain mortgagors’ (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) motions to dismiss Plaintiffs

Case 3:18-cv-01591-AJB-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18cv1591-AJB-BLM

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

Glenn Castillo and Nanet Castillo’s (“Plaintiffs”) complaint. (Doc. Nos. 3, 4.) Plaintiffs

did not file oppositions to Defendants’ motions. For the reasons stated more fully below, 

the Court REQUESTS that Plaintiffs file Oppositions to Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT

On July 13, 2018, Defendantsremoved Plaintiffs’ complaint from the Superior Court 

of the State of California to this Court based on diversity of citizenship. (Doc. No. 1 at 1–

2.) Plaintiffs are individuals residing in the County of San Diego. (Doc. No. 1-2 ¶ 8.)1

Defendants are all corporations with citizenships of Utah, Ohio, and Texas. (Doc. No. 1 at 

3–4.)

On or around November 4, 2005, Plaintiffs entered into a consumer credit 

transaction with WAMU. (Doc. No. 1-2 ¶ 15.) On or about September 15, 2015, without 

Plaintiffs’ knowledge, JP Morgan Chase transferred and conveyed all beneficial interest 

under Plaintiffs’ Note and Deed of Trust to California Reconveyance Company. (Id. ¶ 17.)

On or about March 22, 2017, without Plaintiffs’ knowledge, U.S. Bank substituted T.D. 

Service Company as Trustee under the deed of trust executed by Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 19.) On 

or about June 22, 2017, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. recorded the Notice of Default and 

Election to Sell under the Deed of Trust. (Id. ¶ 20.) On or about October 24, 2017, Select 

Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and First American Title Insurance Company recorded the Notice 

of Trustee’s Sale. (Id. ¶ 21.) 

Based on the above, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ actions were unlawful and 

deprived Plaintiffs of all beneficial interests and enjoyment of their real property. (See 

generally Doc. No. 1-2.) In total, Plaintiffs bring eleven causes of action: (1) Violations of 

California Homeowner Bill of Rights; (2) Injunctive Relief; (3) Predatory Lending 

Practices; (4) Violation of California B&P Code § 17200 et seq.; (5) Constructive Fraud; 

(6) Fraud in Concealment; (7) Fraud in the Inducement; (8) Slander of Title; (9) Quiet 

Title; (10) Declaratory Relief; and (11) Negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 29–134.)

 

1 The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ complaint begins on page two of Doc. No. 1-2.

Case 3:18-cv-01591-AJB-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18cv1591-AJB-BLM

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

Plaintiff’s complaint was removed to this Court on July 13, 2018. (Doc. No. 1.) On 

July 20, 2018, Defendants filed motions to dismiss. (Doc. No. 3, 4.) The Court set a briefing 

schedule. (Doc. No. 8.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have failed to file 

Oppositions to Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s 

complaint and allows a court to dismiss a complaint upon a finding that the plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law for (1) lack 

of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.” 

SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(citations omitted). However, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In making this determination, a court reviews the 

contents of the complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, and drawing all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l 

League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court need not accept “legal 

conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). It is also improper for a 

court to assume “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Associated 

Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526

(1983). However, “[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume 

their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to 

relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, before the Court may address the merits of Defendants’

motions to dismiss, the Court must first turn to Plaintiffs’ failure to file timely oppositions

to Defendants’ motions. Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules, “[u]nless otherwise provided 

by rule or court order, a party opposing a motion, or other request for ruling by the court 

Case 3:18-cv-01591-AJB-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18cv1591-AJB-BLM

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

must file a written opposition . . . .” S.D. CivLR 7.1.f.3.a. Moreover, the local rules also 

state 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.” S.D. CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to the 

motions were due on August 7, 2018. (Doc. No. 8.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs 

have not filed Oppositions, or statements of non-opposition to Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss. 

The Court notes that it appreciates that Plaintiffs are litigating this action pro se. 

However, despite construing pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are still 

bound by the rules of procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)

overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, Plaintiffs did not follow the briefing schedule set by this Court. 

Consequently, as Plaintiffs have failed to file Oppositions, pursuant to the local rules 

and precedent from this circuit, the Court may dismiss this action. See United States v. 

Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that failure to follow a district court’s 

local rules is a proper ground for dismissal); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to file an opposition 

to a motion to dismiss and Rule 41(b) factors weighed in favor of dismissal); McGruder v. 

Evans, No. CIV S-07-1033 MCE EFB P, 2007 WL 2947565, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007) 

(holding that plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss may allow the 

court to recommend that the action be dismissed with or without prejudice). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-01591-AJB-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18cv1591-AJB-BLM

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

CONCLUSION

Before recommending that the present matter be dismissed, the Court orders that

within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file either Oppositions

to Defendants’ motions to dismiss or statements of non-opposition. If Plaintiff files 

Oppositions, Defendants will have seven (7) days from the date of Plaintiffs’ Oppositions

to file a Reply briefs. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a dismissal of this 

action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01591-AJB-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5