Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00924/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00924-0/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

- 1 - 09cv924

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY and KATHERINE STEFFEN, 

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09cv924-MMA(WMc)

vs. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

AMERICAN SERVICING

COMPANY/WELLS FARGO’S

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 21]

BNC MORTGAGE INC., et al,

Defendants.

On July 14, 2009, Plaintiffs Roy and Katherine Steffen, proceeding pro se, filed an amended

complaint alleging various causes of action against Defendant American Servicing Company/Wells

Fargo [Doc. No. 9]. Defendant now moves to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Doc. No. 21]. Plaintiffs filed no opposition to the motion. For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

DISCUSSION

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

According to the amended complaint, on or about March 3, 2006, Plaintiffs applied for and received

a mortgage loan for the purposes of purchasing real property located at 5663 Del Cerro Avenue, San

Diego, California, 92120. Plaintiffs signed a promissory note in the amount of $697,000. Plaintiffs

Case 3:09-cv-00924-MMA-WMC Document 23 Filed 10/15/09 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

1

 The Court acknowledges the longstanding policy in the Ninth Circuit of construing pro se

pleadings with liberality, however, even pro se plaintiff are expected to follow procedural rules and to

file their documents in a timely manner, or ask for an extension if they are unable to do so. Plaintiffs

have been noticed properly on all filings in this matter. The Court has no basis to excuse Plaintiffs’

failure to defend against the pending motion to dismiss.

- 2 - 09cv924

allege that Defendant is now the holder of the note and is collecting payments on the note. Plaintiffs

further allege that Defendant filed a Notice of Default on the property through their trustee on

December 31, 2008, and on or about April 1, 2009, filed a Notice of Trustee Sale. Plaintiffs’

property was sold at the trustee sale on May 15, 2009. Plaintiffs instituted the present action,

alleging the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) breach of contract; (2) violations of

GAAP; (3) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (4) violations of the Uniform

Commercial Code; (5) violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; (6) wrongful

eviction; and (7) fraud in the inducement. Defendant now seeks dismissal of the amended complaint

in its entirety for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiffs filed no opposition to the

motion, nor did they request an extension of time in which to do so. 

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 Plaintiff’s failure to respond, and it chooses to do so.1

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 plaintiff fails to defend his or her 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.

Case 3:09-cv-00924-MMA-WMC Document 23 Filed 10/15/09 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 - 09cv924

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, poised in the same procedural posture.

CONCLUSION

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

this action. The Clerk of Court is ordered to close the case file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2009

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00924-MMA-WMC Document 23 Filed 10/15/09 Page 3 of 3