Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03877/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03877-0/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

SUNNY SIMEON DALAN, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-3877 SBA 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Docket No. 9] 

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.1

 The motion 

is unopposed. Having read and considered the papers submitted in connection with these matters, 

and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss for the reasons set 

forth below. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), the Court adjudicates this matter 

without oral argument. 

I. BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2009, Plaintiffs Sunny Simeon Dalan and Thelma Dalan, acting pro se, filed 

the instant action against Defendants. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of state and 

federal laws with respect to Plaintiffs mortgage loan, both as to its origination and servicing. On 

November 9, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6), which is scheduled for hearing on February 9, 2010. To date, no opposition 

has been filed nor has the Court received any other communication from Plaintiff. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Ninth Circuit has held that the failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss in 

accordance with the district court’s local rules is grounds for granting the motion. Ghazali v. 

 1 Defendants are Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust 

Company, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc. 

Case 4:09-cv-03877-SBA Document 15 Filed 02/05/10 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 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit held 

that in exercising its discretion to dismiss an action for failing to comply with a district court’s 

local rules, the court is “required to weigh 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 on their merits; and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986)); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). Upon balancing the Ghazali factors under the facts of 

this case, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted. 

 The first and second factors both favor dismissal. Under Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiffs were 

obligated to file their opposition to Defendants’ motion by January 19, 2010 (i.e., 21 days prior to 

the hearing on the motion). In contravention of the Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiffs failed to 

respond to the motion, which inherently delays resolution of the case and insures to the detriment 

of the public. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It is incumbent upon 

the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants[.]”); 

Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing court’s need to 

control its own docket); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (noncompliance with a court’s order diverts “valuable time that [the court] could have devoted to other 

major and serious criminal and civil cases on its docket.”). 

 The third factor, the risk of prejudice to Defendants, is related to the strength of the 

plaintiff’s excuse for the default, if any. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Here, Plaintiffs have 

offered no “excuse” for their non-compliance, nor is any apparent from the record. Given that 

Defendants filed their motion over two months ago, Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to 

prepare and file a response to the motion. These facts also weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. 

See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991; Ghazali, 46 F.3d. at 54. 

 The fourth factor favoring disposition of cases on the merits, by definition, weighs against 

dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. 

Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”) 

Case 4:09-cv-03877-SBA Document 15 Filed 02/05/10 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 

 Finally, the Court has considered less drastic alternatives to dismissal. The Court’s 

Standing Orders warn that as a consequence of a party’s failure to oppose a motion, the Court will 

construe such inaction as a consent to the granting of the motion. “[A] district court’s warning to a 

party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of 

[less drastic sanctions]’ requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 

653 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We conclude that because Brydges was warned of the consequence of his 

failure to respond to the appellees’ summary judgment motion, the district court did not err by 

deeming his failure to respond a consent to the motion for summary judgment.”). 

III. CONCLUSION

Weighing the relevant factors, the Court exercises its discretion and grants Defendants’ 

unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b). For the reasons stated above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 2/4/10 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-03877-SBA Document 15 Filed 02/05/10 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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SUNNY SIMEON DALAN et al, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-03877 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on February 5, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Sunny Simeon Dalan 

288 Northampton Drive 

American Canyon, CA 94503 

Thelma Dalan 

288 Northampton Drive 

American Canyon, CA 

Dated: February 5, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 

Case 4:09-cv-03877-SBA Document 15 Filed 02/05/10 Page 4 of 4