Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00441/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00441-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Zandonatti, a single person, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Colorado Federal Savings Bank, original

lender; EMC Mortgage Corporation,

attorney in fact for beneficiary; Quality

Loan Service Corp., substitute trustee; et

al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-441-TUC-RCC (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, EMC Mortgage

Corporation (EMC), on July 30, 2010. (Doc. 4) 

 Also pending is EMC’s motion for a summary ruling filed on October 5, 2010. (Doc.

14) 

The plaintiff in this case, David Zandonatti, claims the defendants conspired to qualify

him for a home loan that he could not afford. EMC moves that this court dismiss the

complaint pursuant to Rules 8, 9, and 12(b)(6). Fed.R.Civ.P. EMC further moves that this

court dismiss the complaint summarily because Zandonatti did not file a response to its

motion to dismiss.

The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Edmonds for all pretrial matters

pursuant to LRCiv. 72.2.

 The motions should be granted. The plaintiff failed to file a response to the motions

violating LRCiv 7.2(i). 

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 21 Filed 11/23/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

 Factual and Procedural Background

On January 10, 2006, Zandonatti borrowed $211,900.00 from the defendant, Colorado

Federal Savings Bank, to purchase a certain property in Sahuarita, Arizona. (Notice of

Removal, Complaint.) Zandonatti assumed a so-called subprime mortgage with an adjustable

interest rate initially set at 8.125 percent, rising to 10.75 percent after five years, and

eventually reaching a high of 13.125 percent. Id. The loan contained an interest-only

provision for the first 10 years. Id.

On June 30, 2010, Zandonatti filed a complaint in Pima County Superior Court

alleging the defendants conspired to qualify him for a loan that he could not afford. Id. His

compliant lists twelve causes of action: (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Contractual Breach of

Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Violations of TILA (15 U.S.C. § 1601, et.seq.), (4)

Violations of RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), (5) Rescission, (6) Fraud, (7) Unfair and

Deceptive Acts and Practices, (8) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (9) Unconscionability, (10)

Predatory Lending, (11) Injunctive Relief, and (12) Quiet Title. Id. 

On July 30, 2010, the defendant, EMC Mortgage Corporation, filed a motion to

dismiss pursuant to Rules 8, 9, and 12(b)(6). Fed.R.Civ.P. Zandonatti did not file a

response. 

On October 5, 2010, EMC filed a motion for summary ruling. EMC argues that the

motion to dismiss should be granted summarily pursuant to LRCiv. 7.2(i) because Zandonatti

failed to file a response to that motion. Zandonatti did not file a response to the motion for

summary ruling.

Discussion

LRCiv. 7.2(i) provides that if a non-moving party “does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or

granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” 

The Ninth Circuit has previously held that “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of

procedure” and the “(f)ailure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 21 Filed 11/23/10 Page 2 of 4
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 -

dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). Before the court may order

a summary dismissal, however, five factors must be considered: “(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.

The first factor merits little discussion: “[T]he public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999).

The second factor, the court’s need to manage its docket, also favors dismissal.

EMC’s motion was filed on July 30, 2010. Zandonatti’s failure to file a response has resulted

in a delay of approximately two and one-half months. The plaintiff’s failure is particularly

important where, as here, the Complaint was written by a lay person and the various causes

of action were not pled with the kind of clarity necessary to accurately and fairly analyze a

motion to dismiss.

While simple delay alone may not constitute prejudice to the defendant, the plaintiff’s

failure in this case caused EMC to file a second motion, the motion for summary ruling. The

plaintiff’s failure to respond, therefore, has already caused an unnecessary expenditure of

resources. The third factor also supports dismissal.

The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs against

dismissal. Pegtaluna v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 243 (9th Cir. 2002).

Finally, the court must consider the availability of less drastic sanctions. Here, the

court is doubtful that less drastic sanctions would suffice. Zandonatti’s failure to respond to

the motion to dismiss is not an isolated occurrence. He failed to respond to EMC’s motion

to dismiss and failed to respond to EMC’s motion for summary ruling. In addition, the court

notes that the defendant, Quality Loan Service Corp., filed its own motion to dismiss on

October 13, 2010. Zandonatti failed to file a response to that motion also. The court

concludes that Zandoantti’s failure to respond is likely to continue. The court could

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 21 Filed 11/23/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

adjudicate the motion to dismiss without benefit of Zandonatti’s response, but without his

input, a fair and accurate analysis of the complaint would be problematic. 

The court finds that four of the five factors favor dismissal. Accordingly, summary

dismissal is appropriate here. See, e.g., Wystrach v. Ciachurski, 267 F. App'x 606, 607-08

(9th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (granting dismissal pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i)).

Recommendation

 The Magistrate Judge recommends the district court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

GRANTING the defendant’s motion to dismiss filed on July 30, 2010 (Doc. 4), and

GRANTING the defendant’s motion for a summary ruling filed on October 5, 2010

(Doc. 14). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to all parties.

DATED this 23rd day of November, 2010.

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 21 Filed 11/23/10 Page 4 of 4