Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00099/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00099-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

MARIO DURAZO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv0099-GPC(KSC)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

MOTION TO STRIKE

[Dkt. Nos. 70, 71.]

vs.

CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE

CORPORATION, a California

corporation, WACHOVIA

MORTGAGE, a division of WELLS

FARGO BANK, N.A., a federally

chartered bank, and DOES 1 through

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

On December 17, 2012, Defendant Wachovia Mortgage, a division of Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a motion

to strike. (Dkt. Nos. 70, 71.) On December 19, 2012, Defendant Cal-Western

Reconveyance Corporation filed a notice of joinder to Wachovia’s motion to dismiss

and motion to strike. (Dkt. Nos. 72, 73.) The Court set a briefing schedule requiring

Plaintiff to file a response by February 1, 2013. (Dkt. No. 74.) To date, Plaintiff,

- 1 - [11cv0099-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:11-cv-00099-GPC-KSC Document 78 Filed 05/07/13 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

proceeding pro se, has not filed an opposition.1

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition

or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing.

Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a

motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and

apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local

rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an

unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to

oppose as consent to granting the motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474

(9th Cir. 1979). Even though the court has an obligation to liberally construe their

pleadings, “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at

54. Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court

“weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5)

the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)).

Here, the Court concludes that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the

defendants” weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff’s

failure to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The majority of these factors

weigh in favor of dismissal. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, the Court

finds good cause to grant Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss. The Court’s

docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the motions and the Court’s

On December 14, 2012, Defendant Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation filed a 1

Declaration on Non-Monetary Status to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 68.) On

December 20, 2012, pursuant to California Civil Code section 2924l, Plaintiff filed an opposition to

Cal-Western’s Declaration on Non-Monetary Status. (Dkt. No. 76.) 

- 2 - [11cv0099-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:11-cv-00099-GPC-KSC Document 78 Filed 05/07/13 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

briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss

as unopposed. See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Holt v.

I.R.S., 231 Fed. Appx. 557, 558 (9th Cir. 2007) (court did not abused its discretion in

dismissing action for failure to file an opposition and rejecting pro se plaintiff's

contention that the district court should have warned her of the consequences of failing

to file an opposition). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss, currently set for May 17, 2013, is VACATED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. 

DATED: May 7, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [11cv0099-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:11-cv-00099-GPC-KSC Document 78 Filed 05/07/13 Page 3 of 3