Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08016/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Declaratory Judgement

---

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 

Raymond Ribail, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bank of America, N.A. 

Defendant. 

No. 13-CV-08016-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Defendant, Bank of America’s Motion to Dismiss pro 

se Plaintiff, Raymond Ribail’s, complaint. (Doc. 11). Defendant has also filed a Request 

for Summary Disposition of the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 13). The Court will grant 

Defendant’s motions for the following reasons. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On December 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against 

Defendant in state Superior Court in Mohave County. (Doc. 1-2 at 4-20). The Complaint 

alleged two claims against Defendant. (Id. at 10-13). On January 17, 2013, Defendant 

removed this case to federal court. (Doc. 1). On February 1, 2013, Defendant filed the 

pending motion to dismiss requesting that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice 

because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. (Doc. 11 

at 3). Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claim is premised on a “show me the note” 

theory which the Arizona Supreme Court has rejected. (Id. at 1-8). Plaintiff did not, and 

to date has not, filed a response to Defendant’s motion contesting Defendant’s argument. 

Case 3:13-cv-08016-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 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 

- 2 -

On March 7, 2013, Defendant filed a Request for Summary Disposition asking the Court 

to grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, and 

deny Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 13). 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if an “unrepresented party or 

counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may 

dispose of the issue summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i). Local Rule 7.2(c) requires responsive 

memoranda to be filed within fourteen (14) days after a motion is served. 

 “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Warren, 601 

F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, 

pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Id. at 54 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). “Before dismissing the action, the district 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 [party seeking 

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

availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 

1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these factors favor the imposition of 

sanctions in most cases, while the fourth cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus 

the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 

910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “review[s] the 

‘district court’s dismissal pursuant to its local rules for abuse of discretion. Only in rare 

cases will [the Court of Appeals] question the exercise of discretion in connection with the 

application of local rules.’” Sekhon v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 11-57131, 2013 

WL 857617, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2013) (quoting Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53). 

 In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary dismissal of a 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action for the failure to follow a Nevada district court local rule because the 

Case 3:13-cv-08016-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/16/13 Page 2 of 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 

- 3 -

pro se plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 

53. The Nevada rule, like Local Rule 7.2(i), considered the failure to file a response to a 

motion to “constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” Id. (quoting D. Nev. R. 

140-6). The Court reasoned that the dismissal was proper because the pro se plaintiff was 

bound by the rules of procedure, and was given notice of the motion and ample time to 

respond. Id. at 54 (citing King, 814 F.2d at 567). 

 Similar to the plaintiff in Ghazali, Plaintiff in this case is also a pro se litigant and 

has not responded despite receiving notice of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) 

which was issued over six months ago and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition 

which was issued over five months ago (Doc. 13). As noted in Wanderer, the first two 

factors—expeditious resolution and docket management—generally favor dismissal. 

Wanderer, 910 F.2d at 656. They weigh especially heavily here because of Plaintiffs’ 

total failure to respond to Defendant’s dispositive motion. 

 The third factor also favors dismissal. There is no risk of prejudice to Defendants 

to grant the motion. 

 While the public policy favoring resolution on the merits weighs against dismissal, 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir.2002), it is no more compelling here 

than it was in Ghazali. Further, in this case, Defendant asserts that dismissal would be 

appropriate based on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff has failed to dispute this 

argument. Accordingly, this factor weighs only slightly against dismissal. 

 The final factor requires the Court to consider the availability of less drastic 

sanctions. Defendant has moved for the Court to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. 

The Court could grant Defendant’s motion without prejudice as a less drastic sanction. 

Plaintiff is a pro se litigant. Plaintiff has also been given ample time to respond to both of 

Defendant’s motions or to move for an extension of time to file a response and has not 

done so. Thus, in weighing this last factor, the Court finds that dismissal without 

prejudice is the only acceptable less drastic sanction in this case. 

 In sum, the five-factor analysis supports dismissal of this case for failure to 

Case 3:13-cv-08016-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/16/13 Page 3 of 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 

- 4 -

respond to Defendant’s motions. The Court’s decision to grant Defendant’s motions in 

these circumstances is further supported by the fact that it is premised upon a local rule 

that expressly permits the Court to summarily grant unopposed motions. Ghazali, 46 F.3d 

at 53 (quoting Warren, 601 F.2d at 474 (“Only in rare cases will we question the exercise 

of discretion in connection with the application of local rules.)). Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss and Motion for Summary Disposition will therefore be granted based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to respond. See LRCiv 7.2(i). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition 

(Doc. 13) is also granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 Dated this 16th day of August, 2013. 

Case 3:13-cv-08016-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/16/13 Page 4 of 4