Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02091/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02091-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Petition to Quiet Title

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rockney Martineau, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as successor

in interest to EMC Mortgage LLC,

formerly known as EMC Mortgage

Corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-2091-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6). The motion was

filed on October 31, 2011, along with notices of the motion and certificates of service. LRCiv

7.2(c) states 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.” Plaintiff has

failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion. Under LRCiv 7.2(i), such failure to respond “may

be deemed consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

summarily.”

On November 21, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “file and serve responsive

memoranda to Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 6) before 5:00 p.m. on December 5, 2011.” (Doc.

7). The Court also warned Plaintiff that should he fail to comply with the Order, “[t]his could

result in the dismissal of [his] claim.” (Id.). 

To date, Plaintiff has still not responded to Defendant’s Motion or requested an

Case 2:11-cv-02091-GMS Document 8 Filed 01/04/12 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 -

extension of time to do so. The Court will therefore grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(I). See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995)

(holding that a district court did not err in summarily granting a defendant’s motion to

dismiss where the local rule stated that “[t]he failure of the opposing party to [respond] shall

constitute a consent to the granting of the motion” and where the pro se plaintiff “was given

ample time to respond” but failed to do so); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

1992) (upholding a district court’s dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failure to

comply with a court order).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is

GRANTED. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action.

DATED this 4th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02091-GMS Document 8 Filed 01/04/12 Page 2 of 2