Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01475/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01475-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

- 1 - 11-cv-1475-MMA (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. LAWSON and GABRIELA T.

LAWSON,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 11-cv-1475-MMA (POR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 5]

vs.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,

ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS, INC.,

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTERING SYSTEMS doing business

in the State of California,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Joseph A. Lawson and Gabriela T. Lawson, proceeding pro se, filed this action

on July 5, 2011 against Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,

Quality Loan Services Corp., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. On September 1,

2011, Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6). [Doc. No. 5.] After the deadline to oppose the Motion passed,

Plaintiffs requested additional time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 9.] The Court

granted Plaintiffs’ request and gave them until November 3, 2011 to file an opposition. [Doc. No.

10]. Plaintiffs never opposed the Motion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Case 3:11-cv-01475-MMA-POR Document 12 Filed 11/28/11 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 - 11-cv-1475-MMA (POR)

DISCUSSION

This action arises from foreclosure-related events with respect to Plaintiffs’ home. The

property in dispute is identified as 1050 Panno St., Brawley, California 92227. Plaintiffs’

Complaint seeks: (1) emergency temporary and permanent injunctive relief to stop the foreclosure

sale of the subject property; and (2) declaratory relief regarding the legal rights to the subject

property. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

8(a) and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and pursuant to

Rule 9(b) for failure to plead fraud with particularity. As noted above, Plaintiffs requested

additional time to respond to the Motion, but never filed an opposition. 

The Ninth Circuit has held 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 respond. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Local Civil 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.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendants’ Motion on

the basis of Plaintiffs’ failure to respond, and it chooses to do so.

Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See, e.g., Hernandez v.

City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward

toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiffs fail to defend their complaint against a Rule

12(b)(6) motion. Thus, this policy lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move

a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes or completely prevents

progress in that direction. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994). In addition,

management of this Court’s docket is of vital significance to the proper and timely resolution of

matters before it. Consequently, the Court finds dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Civil

Rule 7.1.f.3.c serves to facilitate the management of its docket in light of the fact that multiple

cases similar to the one at bar are currently pending and poised in a similar procedural posture.

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01475-MMA-POR Document 12 Filed 11/28/11 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 - 11-cv-1475-MMA (POR)

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motion and

DISMISSES this action without prejudice. All pending motions, deadlines, and/or hearings are

hereby terminated. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 28, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01475-MMA-POR Document 12 Filed 11/28/11 Page 3 of 3