Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01357/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01357-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

18cv1357-AJB-KSC

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

MIR NEMATULLAH SADAT,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT 

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1357-AJB-KSC

ORDER REQUESTING PLAINTIFF

TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Presently before the Court is Defendant Education Credit Management 

Corporation’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mir Nematullah Sadat’s 

(“Plaintiff”) complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s

motion. For the reasons stated more fully below, the Court REQUESTS that Plaintiff file

an Opposition to Defendant’s motions to dismiss.

FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT

On June 20, 2018, Defendant removed Plaintiff’s complaint from the Superior Court 

of the State of California to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 

at 1–2.) Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 3.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint is quite short. Plaintiff simply alleges that Defendant 

inaccurately reported derogatory information on Plaintiff’s credit file with major credit 

Case 3:18-cv-01357-AJB-KSC Document 10 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv1357-AJB-KSC

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

bureaus. (Id.) Plaintiff’s complaint was removed to this Court on June 20, 2018. (Doc. No. 

1.) On June 27, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court set a 

briefing schedule. (Doc. No. 5.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to file an

Opposition to Defendant’s motions to dismiss.

LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s 

complaint and allows a court to dismiss a complaint upon a finding that the plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law for (1) lack 

of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.” 

SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(citations omitted). However, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In making this determination, a court reviews the 

contents of the complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, and drawing all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l 

League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court need not accept “legal 

conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). It is also improper for a 

court to assume “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Associated 

Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526

(1983). However, “[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume 

their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to 

relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-01357-AJB-KSC Document 10 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv1357-AJB-KSC

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

As a threshold matter, before the Court may address the merits of Defendant’s

motions to dismiss, the Court must first turn to Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition 

to Defendant’s motions. Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules, “[u]nless otherwise provided 

by rule or court order, a party opposing a motion, or other request for ruling by the court 

must file a written opposition . . . .” S.D. CivLR 7.1.f.3.a. Moreover, the local rules also 

state that “[i]f 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. CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. Plaintiff’s Opposition to the motion 

was due on July 12, 2018. (Doc. No. 5.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed

an Opposition, or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

The Court notes that it appreciates that Plaintiff is litigating this action pro se. 

However, despite construing pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are still 

bound by the rules of procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)

overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, Plaintiff did not follow the briefing schedule set by this Court. 

Consequently, as Plaintiff has failed to file an Opposition, pursuant to the local rules 

and precedent from this circuit, the Court may dismiss this action. See United States v. 

Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that failure to follow a district court’s 

local rules is a proper ground for dismissal); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to file an opposition 

to a motion to dismiss and Rule 41(b) factors weighed in favor of dismissal); McGruder v. 

Evans, No. CIV S-07-1033 MCE EFB P, 2007 WL 2947565, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007) 

(holding that plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss may allow the 

court to recommend that the action be dismissed with or without prejudice). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-01357-AJB-KSC Document 10 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv1357-AJB-KSC

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

CONCLUSION

Before recommending that the present matter be dismissed, the Court orders that

within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file either an Opposition

to Defendant’s motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. If Plaintiff files an 

Opposition, Defendant will have seven (7) days from the date of Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

file a Reply brief. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01357-AJB-KSC Document 10 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4