Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02547/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02547-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

William Douglas Hipp; Judi Kay Hipp,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

M&T Bank; Mortgage Electronic 

Registration Systems; Old Republic Title 

Insurance Agency Incorporated; Quality 

Loan Service Corporation; Wells Fargo 

Bank NA; Federal Home Loan Mortgage 

Corporation; Unknown Parties,

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02547-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants Federal Home Loan Mortgage 

Corporation’s, Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc.’s and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) and Defendant M&T Bank’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). 

For the following reasons, these motions are granted. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, through counsel, filed their Complaint (Doc. 1-1) in the Arizona State 

Superior Court in Yuma, Arizona on October 16, 2013. The Complaint revolves around 

title and ownership of property and alleges ten causes of action: (1) Lack of Standing to 

Foreclose; (2) Fraud in the Concealment; (3) Fraud in the Inducement; (4) Intentional 

Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Quiet Title; (6) Slander of Title; (7) Declaratory 

Relief (8) Violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA); (9) Violations of the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA); and (10) Rescission.

Case 2:13-cv-02547-GMS Document 20 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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

On December 13, 2013 Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed a Notice of 

Removal with the Court, removing the case from Arizona State Superior Court based on 

several grounds for jurisdiction, including diversity jurisdiction and federal question 

jurisdiction. (Doc. 1) On January 10, 2014, Defendants Federal Home Loan Mortgage 

Corporation, Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed and 

served their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11). On January 17, 2014, Defendant M&T Bank 

filed and served its Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). On January 31, 2014, Federal Home 

Loan Mortgage Corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Wells Fargo 

Bank NA filed and served a Notice (Doc. 15) regarding the lack of opposition from 

Plaintiffs to their Motion to Dismiss. In this Notice, these Defendants noted that under 

local rules Plaintiffs response to their Motion was due January 27, 2014. The Notice also 

pointed out Local Rule of Civil Procedure P. 7.2(i), which states that “if the 

unrepresented party or counsel does not serve and file the required answering 

memoranda, . . . such non- compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting 

of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” (Doc. 15 at 2.)

On February 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 16) to 

respond to Defendants’ motions, though it does not specify the amount of time requested 

or when a Response would be filed. Plaintiffs claimed they were examining a recent case 

decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals on January 30, 2014, Steinberger v. McVey ex 

rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 318 P.3d 419 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014), which opinion, Plaintiffs 

stated “squarely impacts the issues in this matter.” (Doc. 16 at 1.) Both groups of 

Defendants filed responses (Doc. 17, 18) opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of 

Time citing Plaintiffs’ failures to comply with local rules and a lack of communication by 

the Plaintiffs with the Defendants and the Court. (Docs. 17 at 2; Doc. 18 at 2.) 

Defendants also noted that the case supposedly under consideration was decided after 

Plaintiffs’ first deadline passed, and, they argued, was inapposite to the issues raised by 

Defendants in their Motions to Dismiss. (Id.) Defendants also pointed again to Local 

Case 2:13-cv-02547-GMS Document 20 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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

Rule of Civil Procedure P. 7.2(i) which warns that a failure to respond to a motion may 

be deemed consent to the denial or granting of the motion. (Id.) On February 25, 2014, 

however, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for the Extension of Time (Doc. 16), 

giving Plaintiffs “until March 11, 2014 to file Responses to the pending Motions to 

Dismiss (Docs. 11-12).” (Doc. 19.) This second deadline has now passed. 

DISCUSSION

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2 provides that counsel’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.” LRCiv 7.2(i). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b)(1) provides that a court “may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final 

judgment, order, or proceeding” for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect.” However, “mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ 

neglect.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 392

(1993). The 9th Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision that a lawyer's failure to 

read and understand unambiguous rules does not constitute excusable neglect. Speiser, 

Krause & Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 271 F.3d 884, 887 (9th Cir. 2001); See also In re 

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., CV. 08-00405 DAE-BMK, 2011 WL 1483923 (D. Haw. Apr. 

18, 2011). Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have submitted any indication that their 

missed deadlines are excusable. Instead, in Plaintiffs’ Motion for the Extension of Time 

(Doc. 16) after the first missed deadline, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated he wished to review a 

recent case from the Arizona Court of Appeals, even though this case was issued after 

Plaintiffs’ deadline had already passed. (Doc. 16 at 1.)

Plaintiffs’ failure, through counsel, to respond to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss 

(Docs. 11-12) even after the Court granted (Doc. 19) a post-deadline request for an 

Extension of Time (Doc. 16) is sufficient grounds for dismissal. The Court does not need 

to address the merits of the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 11-12). Wystrach v. 

Ciachurski, 267 F. App'x 606, 609 (9th Cir. 2008) (There is no requirement to examine 

the merits of an unopposed motion to dismiss before summarily granting it pursuant to a 

Case 2:13-cv-02547-GMS Document 20 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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

local rule.) (citing Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995)). The Court finds that 

Plaintiffs’ failure to respond represents consent to the granting of the Motions. LRCiv 

7.2(i). 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s, 

Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc.’s and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. 11) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant M&T Bank’s Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. 12) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this 

action and enter judgment accordingly.

Dated this 24th day of March, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-02547-GMS Document 20 Filed 03/24/14 Page 4 of 4