Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03124/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

KENNETH YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv3124-WQH-BLM

ORDER

v.

BANORTE; STEWART TITLE;

COASTAL DESIGN AND

DEVELOPMENT GROUP; RICK

STARK; MARISELA SULLIVAN;

NADIA HERNANDEZ; ONE

ELEVEN; MICHAEL COSKEY; and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Stewart

Title of California, Inc., erroneously sued as Stewart Title. (ECF No. 5).

I. BACKGROUND

On December 30, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Verified

Complaint against Defendants Stewart Title, Banorte, Coastal Design and Development

Group, Rick Stark, Marisela Sullivan, Nadia Hernandez, One Eleven, Michael Coskey,

and doe defendants. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges causes of action for breach

of contract, fraud, and negligence. Id. 

The Complaint alleges that Defendants “conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his

Property and of his money . . . . by taking full payment for a condominium, which was

supposed to be built in Rosarito, Baja California, Mexico.” Id. at ¶ 4. The Complaint

- 1 - 16cv3124-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-03124-WQH-BLM Document 11 Filed 12/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

alleges that “the monies were used to build another building and not the condominium

fully paid for by Plaintiff with United States currency in excess of $120,000.00.” Id. 

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff brought this action after his recent discovery that

“the condominium was never going to be built and that the money had been taken by

defendant STEWART TITLE and given the other defendants.” Id. at ¶ 5.

On October 26, 2017, Defendant Stewart Title of California, Inc. (“Stewart

Title”) filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to

Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6). The hearing date listed on the motion was

December 4, 2017. (ECF No. 5). 

On November 27, 2017, Defendant filed a notice of lack of response to the

motion to dismiss. The notice states, “Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff . . . failed

to file an opposition or response to Defendant Stewart Title of California, Inc.’s Notice

of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Opposition to the motion was required

to be served on or before November 20, 2017.” (ECF No. 6). 

On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to extend time to file

response to motion to dismiss until December 4, 2017. (ECF No. 7). On December 5,

2017, the Court granted the ex parte motion. (ECF No. 8). The docket reflects that

Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition. 

On December 13, 2017, Defendant filed a second notice of Plaintiff’s lack of

response to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9). 

On December 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel stating

“Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion to Dismiss and would instead like to submit the

attached First Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff attached a copy of a

proposed first amended complaint to the declaration. (ECF No. 10-1). 

II. RULING OF THE COURT

A district court may properly grant an unopposed motion pursuant to a local rule

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

to respond. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1

- 2 - 16cv3124-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-03124-WQH-BLM Document 11 Filed 12/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

provides: “If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required 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.” CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(c). “Although there is ... a

[public] policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the moving

party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory

and evasive tactics.” In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Morris

v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991)) (affirming dismissal for

failure to prosecute). 

The docket reflects that Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition to the motion

to dismiss. Further, the Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate in light of

Plaintiff’s assertion that he does not oppose the motion to dismiss and instead seeks to

file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant

Stewart Title is GRANTED. (ECF No. 5). The Complaint is dismissed as to Defendant

Stewart Title without prejudice. Plaintiff may file any motion for leave to file an

amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed. 

DATED: December 18, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv3124-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-03124-WQH-BLM Document 11 Filed 12/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3