Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00210/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00210-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

THOMAS J. FORBES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv210-MMA (JMA)

vs. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Forbes, proceeding pro se, had filed a First Amended Complaint against

Defendants Federal Nation Mortgage Association, et al. See Doc. No. 4. Plaintiff alleges various

causes of action arising out of events related to the presumed foreclosure sale of real property. 

Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.,

ReconTrust Company, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., and Landsafe

Title Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not file an opposition to

Defendants’ motion. Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition asking the Court to exercise its

discretion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.(f)(c)(3) and grant the pending motion to dismiss based

on Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition. See Doc. No. 39. Plaintiff subsequently filed an ex

parte request to dismiss the entire case against all defendants without prejudice. See Doc. No. 43. 

According to Plaintiff, he is “no longer able to effectively prosecute this matter.” Plaintiff’s Decl’n

¶ 2. 

- 1 - 12cv210

Case 3:12-cv-00210-MMA-JMA Document 44 Filed 06/19/12 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

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to

dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a

motion for failure to oppose the motion. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.

1995). 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.” However, the Court finds that ruling on Defendants’ motion

and dismissing this action pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) would not be appropriate in light

of Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal of his entire case. Because Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(1) “confers upon a plaintiff an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint

before the defendant files an answer or summary judgment motion,” Plaintiff may dismiss his action

against the moving Defendants unilaterally pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(I). Swedberg v. Marotzke,

339 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Rule 41(a)(1) specifically allows a plaintiff to dismiss a

complaint without prejudice in the face of a 12(b)(6) motion.”). Accordingly, the Court construes

Plaintiff’s request for dismissal as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(I) and

DISMISSES the remainder of this action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to

terminate all pending motions and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 18, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv210

Case 3:12-cv-00210-MMA-JMA Document 44 Filed 06/19/12 Page 2 of 2