Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01453/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01453-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1640 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAREK KABBAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-CV-1453 BEN (DHB)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS BY DEFENDANT JP

MORGAN CHASE BANK [ECF No.

10]

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS BY DEFENDANT

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE [ECF

No. 5]

vs.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORPORATION; NATIONSTAR

MORTGAGE, LLC; JP MORGAN

CHASE BANK and DOES 1 through

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

On August 1, 2013, Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC moved to dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 5.) On August 2, 2013,

Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

(ECF No. 10.) Both motions were noticed for hearing on September 9, 2013. Under

Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was

due by August 26, 2013. Plaintiff has filed no opposition or statement of

non-opposition. The deadline has lapsed. 

“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 failure to respond.” Navarro v. Greenlight Fin.

- 1 - 13cv1453

Case 3:13-cv-01453-BEN-DHB Document 13 Filed 08/30/13 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

Servs., No. 10cv1631, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111018, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19,

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

Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), an opposing party’s failure to file the papers as required by Civil

Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) “may constitute a consent to the granting of [the] motion.” 

“Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. However, 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. Thus, this policy lends

little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition

on the merits but whose conduct impedes or completely prevents progress in that

direction.” Navarro, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111018, at *4 (citations omitted). 

Furthermore, the Court’s need to manage its docket and the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation favors dismissal. 

On the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to file oppositions or statements of

non-opposition to the motions as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), the Court

takes both pending motions under submission and grants them. The claims against

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage and Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank are hereby

DISMISSED. Because the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice would be an

unnecessarily drastic sanction, the Court’s dismissals are without prejudice. If

Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies outlined in

the motions, he must do so within 21 days of entry of this order. The hearings

scheduled for September 9, 2013 are vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 30, 2013

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv1453

Case 3:13-cv-01453-BEN-DHB Document 13 Filed 08/30/13 Page 2 of 2