Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00904/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00904-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

GEORGE MARTINEZ LARA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC et

al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:12-cv-0904-GPC-BLM

ORDER GRANTING

UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO

DISMISS AND DENYING AS

MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE

(ECF NOS. 71, 72, 75, 76)

On April 16, 2013, this Court granted Defendants’ motionsto dismiss Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was

filed on June 11, 2013. (ECF No. 70.) 

On June 12, 2013, defendant McCarthy & Holthus, LLP (“McCarthy &

Holthus”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC. (ECF No. 71.) On the same day,

defendants Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Aurora”) and Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) also filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC. 

(ECF No. 72.) 

On June 20, 2013, defendant Ruzicka & Wallace, LLP (“Ruzicka & Wallace”)

also filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC, along with a motion to strike pursuant

to California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. (ECF Nos. 75, 76.) 

The Court set the foregoing motions for a hearing on September 20, 2013,

3:12-cv-0904-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-00904-GPC-BLM Document 79 Filed 09/16/13 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

meaning any response to these motions was due on or before September 6, 2013. 

See CivLR 7.1.e.2. To date, the Court has received no response to Defendants’

motions. The docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with these motions.

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition

or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. 

Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a

motion.” CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply

local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules.

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed

motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as

consent to granting the motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir.

1979). Even though the court has an obligation to liberally construe their pleadings,

“pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. Before

dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court should

“weigh several factors: ‘(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 of their merits; and (5) the

availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v.

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)).

Here, the Court concludes that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the

defendants” weigh in favor of granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss based on

Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. That is, the

majority of these factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Thus, the Court GRANTS the

motions to dismiss filed by McCarthy & Holthus, (ECF No. 71); Aurora and MERS,

(ECF No. 72); and Ruzicka & Wallace, (ECF No. 75). The Court DENIES AS MOOT

Ruzicka & Wallace’s motion to strike, (ECF No. 76).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s entire SAC is

2 3:12-cv-0904-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-00904-GPC-BLM Document 79 Filed 09/16/13 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

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendants’ motions,

currently set for September 20, 2013, is VACATED.

DATED: September 16, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

3 3:12-cv-0904-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-00904-GPC-BLM Document 79 Filed 09/16/13 Page 3 of 3