Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01391/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01391-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph R. Stotts; Juanita K. Stotts, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.; California

Reconveyance Company; J.P. Morgan

Chase Bank, N.A.; Bank of America,

N.A., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1391-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On July 8, 2009, three Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case as to all

Defendants. Under Local Rule 12.1(b), Plaintiffs were required to respond withing 30 days.

Plaintiffs failed to respond. Pursuant to Local Rule Civil 7.2(i), this Court can treat

Plaintiffs’ failure to respond as consent to the motion being granted.

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474

(9th Cir. 1979)). “Before dismissing the action, the district 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 [party seeking dismissal]; (4) the public

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions.’” Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

In the motion to dismiss, Defendants California Reconveyance Company, J.P. Morgan

Case 2:09-cv-01391-JAT Document 15 Filed 09/03/09 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

- 2 -

Chase Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A. argue, among other things, that because

Defendant Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. is in receivership, this Court does not have

jurisdiction over Defendant Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. Further the three moving

Defendants argue that because Defendant Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. is a necessary and

inseparable party to all claims in the complaint, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. As the motion notes, due to Defendant Washington Mutual Bank’s, F.A.

receivership, all claims against Defendant Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. had to be filed

with the FDIC. Doc. #7 at 9-10 (citing 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D) and New Orleans

Employees’ Retirement System v. F.D.I.C, 2009 U.S.Dist.Lexis 39029, 5-7 (W.D. Wash.

2009)).

Thus, turning to the factors outlined in Ghazali, the public’s interest in prompt

resolution of cases favors dismissal because the Court has already waited an additional three

weeks for a response from Plaintiffs and the Court sees no reason to further delay this case.

Next, similarly, for the Court to manage its docket, the Court must timely resolve motions

and determine its jurisdiction. Plaintiffs failure to respond seems a tacit admission that this

Court is without jurisdiction to hear this case. Third, the party seeking dismissal of this case

would be prejudiced by the Court prolonging the pendency of a case over which it lacks

jurisdiction. Fourth, the public policy in favor of disposing of cases of their merits is not

harmed if a Court dismisses a case for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, while this factor normally

weighs against dismissal as a sanction, Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose an argument premised on

this Court’s lack of jurisdiction over a defendant in receivership weighs in favor of dismissal

because a merits resolution in this forum would not be possible. Finally, as to the availability

of less drastic sanctions; because the Court is focusing on the lack of jurisdiction, the Court

will dismiss this case without prejudice — which is the appropriate remedy whenever the

Court lacks jurisdiction and less drastic than a dismissal with prejudice.

Thus, having weighed all of the factors and having considered Local Rule Civil 7.2(i),

Case 2:09-cv-01391-JAT Document 15 Filed 09/03/09 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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED granting the motion to dismiss (Doc. #7) and dismissing this entire

case, without prejudice; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01391-JAT Document 15 Filed 09/03/09 Page 3 of 3