Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00436/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00436-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Theodore E. Coit, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sutton Funding LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0436-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On March 24, 2010, Defendants Sutton Funding LLC and HomEq Servicing have

filed a motion to quash lis pendens. Dkt. #7. Plaintiff has filed two motions for extension

of time. Dkt. ##12, 17. The Court will deny the motions for extension of time. Id.

Plaintiff shall file any response to the motion to quash lis pendens on or before

April 30, 2010.

Currently, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending before the Court. Dkt. #8.

Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(c) (“Local Rules”), Plaintiff had until April 14,

2010 to file a response to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has failed to file a response.

Plaintiff shall file a response to the motion to dismiss on or before April 30, 2010.

Plaintiff’s attention is directed to Local Rule 7.2(i), which provides, in pertinent part:

If a motion [or opposition] does not conform in all substantial respects with the

requirements of this Rule, or if the opposing 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.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i), the Court may deem Plaintiffs’ failure to substantially comply

Case 2:10-cv-00436-DGC Document 24 Filed 04/23/10 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

- 2 -

with the requirements of Local Rule 7.2 or his failure to timely respond a consent to the

granting of the Defendants’ motions. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994)

(holding that Arizona district court did not err in summarily granting defendants’ motion for

summary judgment pursuant to former Local Rule 11(i) where pro se plaintiff failed to

respond to motion after district court had warned plaintiff that it would deem his failure to

respond a consent to granting of motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 472-74 (9th

Cir. 1979) (holding that Arizona district court did not err in summarily dismissing

indictments pursuant to local rule where government failed to respond to motions to dismiss

indictments); 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 and, citing

Warren, stating that “[f]ailure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for

dismissal”); United States v. $22,474 in U.S. Currency, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1011 (D. Ariz.

1999) (citing former Rule 1.10(i) and stating that failure to comply with Local Rules “would

be grounds upon which to summarily grant the Government’s motion to dismiss”).

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or comply with the rules or any Court order,

the Court may dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that district court did not

abuse its discretion in dismissing the pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with

a court order). Rule 41(b) further provides: “Unless the [C]ourt in its order for dismissal

otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision . . . operates as an adjudication upon

the merits.”

IT IS SO ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time (Dkt. #12, Dkt. #17) are denied.

2. Plaintiff shall file a response to the motion to quash (Dkt. #7) on or before

April 30, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00436-DGC Document 24 Filed 04/23/10 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

- 3 -

3. Plaintiff shall file a response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. #8) on or before

April 30, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of April, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00436-DGC Document 24 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 3