Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01197/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

1

Case No. 16-cv-01197-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIZALDE SANTOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01197-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Re: Docket No. 19)

Before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint by Plaintiff Rizalde 

Santos.1 Santos, who is represented by counsel, did not oppose the motion within the 14 days 

allowed by Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Instead, Santos filed a belated opposition—only after Defendants 

filed a reply brief noting the lack of any opposition—and offered no explanation for the delay.2 

The court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument, pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-

1(b), and it is GRANTED as unopposed.

Although Defendants sought dismissal without leave to amend on all claims, Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(a) advises the court to grant leave “freely,” and the Ninth Circuit has directed that courts 

should apply this policy “with extreme liberality.”3 As a result, the court is not persuaded that it 

may deny leave to amend entirely. With respect to some causes of action, however, Santos’ 

belated opposition makes clear that further amendment would be futile.

 

1

See Docket No. 19.

2

See Docket Nos. 30, 31.

3

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. 

Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)).

Case 5:16-cv-01197-HRL Document 43 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-cv-01197-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

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

Northern District of California

For example, Defendants argue that Santos’ twelfth cause of action, for injunctive relief,

4

fails to state a claim because injunctive relief is not a standalone cause of action.5 Santos makes 

no attempt to defend it.

6

 In addition, Defendants point out that Santos’ claims regarding allegedly 

force-placed insurance—the third through ninth causes of action in his complaint, as well as 

portions of the first and second7—are barred by res judicata due to a settlement in a class action, 

where Santos was a member of the class.8Even belatedly, Santos does not oppose Defendants’ 

request that the court take judicial notice of the documents related to the class action; nor does 

Santos object to Defendants’ claim that he was a class member. Instead, Santos contends only that 

the class action notice “was not sufficient to provide proper notice to a sufficient number of class 

members.”9 In light of this perfunctory response, the court is satisfied that no further amendment 

could salvage these claims.

Leave to amend, therefore, is granted only with respect to Santos’ tenth and eleventh 

causes of action, as well as his first and second to the extent they do not relate to force-placed 

insurance. The remaining claims are dismissed without leave to amend. Any amended complaint 

shall be filed within 21 days.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

4

See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 139-140.

5

See Docket No. 19 at 13.

6

See Docket No. 31.

7

See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 57-60, 66-68, 70-125.

8

See Docket No. 19 at 4-10.

9 Docket No. 31 at 9.

Case 5:16-cv-01197-HRL Document 43 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 2