Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00920/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00920-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

1

 Defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC separately moved to dismiss the claims against it.

(Green Tree MTD, ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff opposes Green Tree’s motion. (Opp’n to Green Tree MTD,

ECF No. 4.)

- 1 - 11cv920

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO A. ESPINOZA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-920 JLS (WVG)

ORDER: GRANTING

DEFENDANT QUALITY LOAN

SERVICE CORPORATION’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 7)

vs.

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC;

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants.

On March 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed this pro se action against Defendants Green Tree Servicing,

LLC and Quality Loan Service Corporation (QLS). (Notice of Removal, ¶ 1, ECF No. 1; see

generally Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) On June 6, 2011, QLS moved to dismiss the claims against it

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 (QLS MTD, ECF No. 7.) The Court set a July

21, 2011 hearing date on QLS’ motion. (Id.) Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1), Plaintiff’s opposition

to the motion was due by July 7, 2011. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(e)(1). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an

opposition . (See Notice of Pl.’s Non-Opp’n, ECF No. 10.)

“The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss

pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for

Case 3:11-cv-00920-JLS-WVG Document 11 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 11cv920

failure to respond.” Navarro v. Greenlight Fin. Servs., 2010 WL 4117444, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19,

2010) (Anello, J.) (citing Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under Civil Local Rule

7.1(f)(3)(c), “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner requested by Civil Local Rule

7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by

the court.” Rule 7.1(e)(2) requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition no later than fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing, unless otherwise provided by court

order.

Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, see, e.g., Hernandez v. City

of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998), “a case cannot move forward toward resolution on the

merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,”

Navarro, 2010 WL 4117444, at *2. “Thus, this policy lends little support to a party whose

responsibility is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes or

completely prevents progress in that direction.” Id. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution

of litigation, the Court’s need to manage its docket, and the potential prejudice to Moving Defendants

all weigh in favor of dismissal. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The Court finds that dismissal of this

action pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) serves to vindicate these interests given that several

cases similar to this one are currently pending and awaiting resolution.

QLS requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s motion without leave to amend. (Notice of Pl.’s NonOpp’n 2–3.) Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court considers dismissal with

prejudice premature. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS QLS’ motion to dismiss and DISMISSES

Plaintiff’s claims against QLS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to continue litigating

this case against QLS, he SHALL FILE an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies raised in

QLS’ motions within 14 days of the date that this Order is electronically docketed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00920-JLS-WVG Document 11 Filed 07/18/11 Page 2 of 2