Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00220/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00220-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA AMADOR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv220-WQH-RBB

ORDER

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. formally

doing business as AMERICA’S

WHOLESALE LENDER;

RECONTRUST COMPANY; and DOES

1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by all Defendants. (ECF No.

5).

BACKGROUND

On December 24, 2012, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a

Complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1-2). The Complaint contains

allegations related to a loan transaction.

On January 28, 2013, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of

federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1).

On February 4, 2013, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 5). The Motion to Dismiss contains a Proof of

Service indicating that Plaintiff was served with the motion at the address listed in Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

The docket reflects that no opposition to the Motion to Dismiss has been filed.

- 1 - 13cv220-WQH-RBB

Case 3:13-cv-00220-WQH-JMA Document 6 Filed 03/21/13 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

DISCUSSION

A district court may properly grant an unopposed motion pursuant to a local rule where

the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: “If an

opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that

failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the

court.” S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). “Although there is ... a [public] policy favoring

disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the moving party to move towards that

disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics.” In re Eisen,

31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for failure to

prosecute); see also Steel v. City of San Diego, No. 09cv1743, 2009 WL 3715257, at *1 (S.D.

Cal., Nov. 5, 2009) (dismissing action pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 for plaintiff’s failure to

respond to a motion to dismiss).

The Motion to Dismiss contains a proof of service indicating that Plaintiff was served

with the Motion. (ECF No. 5-2 at 39). The Motion and the Court’s docket reflect that the

hearing for the Motion to Dismiss was noticed for March 11, 2013. Civil Local Rule 7.1

provides: “each party opposing a motion ... must file that opposition ... with the clerk ... not

later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.” S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule

7.1(e)(2). The docket reflects that Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition. 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 for failure to file an opposition. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 5). 

The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DATED: March 21, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv220-WQH-RBB

Case 3:13-cv-00220-WQH-JMA Document 6 Filed 03/21/13 Page 2 of 2