Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02196/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19-CV-2196-CAB-LL

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

BARRY LEVINE, ADELAIDE LEVINE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-2196-CAB-LL

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 4]

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Caliber 

Home Loans, Inc. and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF8 Master Participation 

Trust, (collectively “Defendants”). [Doc. No. 4.] The motion was filed on November 26, 

2019 and set a hearing date (for briefing purposes only) of December 31, 2019. Civil Local 

Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition no later than fourteen calendar days before the noticed hearing. Thus, based on 

the hearing date of December 31, 2019, Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was

due on December 17, 2019. No opposition has been filed. Under the local rules, Plaintiff’s

failure to oppose “may constitute a consent to the granting of [the] motion.” See S.D. Cal. 

CivLR 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

Case 3:19-cv-02196-CAB-LL Document 7 Filed 01/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-2196-CAB-LL

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

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). 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 on 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 Ghazali factors support granting the motion based on the lack of opposition 

because Plaintiffs’ failure to file anything with the Court, including failing to oppose the 

motion to dismiss, indicates that Plaintiffs have abandoned this lawsuit and consent to the 

granting of the motion to dismiss. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants by 

further delays in this litigation, and the lack of appropriate less drastic sanctions all support 

dismissal. Moreover, upon review of the motion and of the record, the Court finds that 

Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against the Defendants and that no argument in opposition 

could possibly persuade the Court otherwise. The Court assumes the lack of opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is intentional and constitutes Plaintiff’s consent to the 

granting of the motion.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED based on the lack of opposition 

and on its merits for the reasons set forth above, and the complaint is DISMISSED. The 

Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02196-CAB-LL Document 7 Filed 01/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2