Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01501/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01501-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

- 1 - 09cv1501w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALDO SANTIAGO,

 Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV- 1501 W (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS (DOC. 5)

v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, et

al., 

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant JP Morgan

Chase Bank, N.A., as purchaser of the loans and other assets of Washington Mutual

Bank (“Defendant”). Plaintiff has failed to oppose. 

Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers

in the manner required by Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may constitute a consent to

the granting of that motion or other ruling by the court.” The Ninth Circuit has held

that a district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond. See

generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming

dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the

motion and ample time to respond). 

 Here, based on the hearing date, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before

October 12, 2009. Plaintiff, however, did not file an opposition and has not requested

Case 3:09-cv-01501-W-CAB Document 6 Filed 11/06/09 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

- 2 - 09cv1501w

additional time to do so. Moreover, there is no evidence before the Court that

Defendant’s moving papers failed to reach the mailing address designated in Defendant’s

Proof of Service or that Plaintiff was not aware of the pending motion. Relying on Civil

Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c), the Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendant’s motion

as consent to the merits. 

In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint addressing the deficiencies

identified in Defendant’s motion must be filed on or before December 7, 2009. Plaintiff

is further cautioned that failure to comply with this order or to respond to any future

motions to dismiss may result in dismissal with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 6, 2009

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01501-W-CAB Document 6 Filed 11/06/09 Page 2 of 2