Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02435/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02435-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157(d) Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

1

18cv2435-CAB-JMA

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

In re: Michael Sevier and Linda Sevier, 

Debtors,

Michael Sevier and Linda Sevier,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB, 

d/b/a, Christiana Trust, not individually 

but as trustee for the Pretium Mortgage 

Acquisition Trust; Seterus Finance; Selene 

Finance, LP; Les Zieve, Esq.; and Zieve, 

Brodnax & Steele, LLP,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2435-CAB-JMA

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 10]

On February 27, 2019, the Court granted an unopposed motion to dismiss filed by 

Defendant Seterus Finance. [Doc. No. 9.] The remaining defendants now move for 

dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against them. The motion was filed on April 1, 2019 and set 

a hearing date (for briefing purposes only) of May 7, 2019. Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. 

requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition no 

later than fourteen calendar days before the noticed hearing. Thus, based on the hearing 

date of May 7, 2019, Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on April 22, 

2019. No opposition has been filed. Under the local rules, Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose

“may constitute a consent to the granting of [the] motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c.

Case 3:18-cv-02435-CAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 04/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2435-CAB-JMA

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

District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including 

dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 

52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule 

by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). Before 

dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] 

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 of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, the Ghazali factors support granting the motion based on the lack of opposition 

because Plaintiffs’ failure to file anything with the Court since November 6, 2018, 

including failing to oppose both motions to dismiss, indicates that Plaintiffs have 

abandoned this lawsuit and actually consent to the granting of the motion to dismiss. The 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its 

docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants by further delays in this litigation, and the lack 

of appropriate less drastic sanctions all support dismissal. Moreover, upon review of the 

motion and of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against the 

remaining Defendants and that no argument in opposition could possibly persuade the 

Court otherwise. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED both for lack of 

opposition and on its merits for the reasons set forth in the motion, and the complaint is 

DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02435-CAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 04/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2