Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08060/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08060-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO)

---

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 

Michael L. Bower, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Capital One Bank (USA) NA; Gurstel 

Chargo PA, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-8060-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant Capital One Bank’s Motion to Dismiss for 

Failure to State a Claim. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion and the 

time for doing so has expired. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion is 

granted. 

BACKGROUND 

 On February 14, 2012, pro se plaintiff Michael J. Bower filed a complaint against 

Defendants in Mohave County Justice Court, alleging civil racketeering and a violation 

of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). (Doc. 1, Ex. 3). Capital One Bank then 

removed the case to this Court and served plaintiff with a copy of the Notice of Removal. 

(Doc. 1). On April 9, 2012, Capital One filed its 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure 

to State a Claim (Doc. 8) and Defendant Gurstel Chargo later joined in its Motion. (Doc. 

9). Plaintiff failed to respond within the fourteen-day period, as required under LRCiv 

7.2(c). On May 2, 2012, this court warned the Plaintiff that failure to respond to the 

Case 3:12-cv-08060-GMS Document 11 Filed 05/31/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

motion by May 16, 2012 may be construed as consent to dismissal of his case. However, 

as of the date of this order, Plaintiff has failed to file a response. 

DISCUSSION 

 LRCiv 7.2(i) provides that an unrepresented party’s failure to respond to a motion 

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

the motion summarily.” This Circuit insists that “[p]ro se litigants must follow the same 

rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1986). 

 The Court has afforded Plaintiff ample time to respond to Defendants’ motion and 

has warned him that failure to do so could result in the granting of the motion. However, 

Plaintiff has neither filed a responsive memorandum nor taken any other action. 

Moreover, upon review of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court determined it has 

merit. The Court will therefore grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure 

to State a Claim (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. 

 Dated this 31st day of May, 2012. 

Case 3:12-cv-08060-GMS Document 11 Filed 05/31/12 Page 2 of 2