Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02803/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02803-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

JOSE NODAL and MARTHA

NODAL,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13cv2803-GPC(WMC)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Dkt. No. 4.]

vs.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC;

FEDERAL HOME LOAN

MORTGAGE CORPORATION; and

DOES 1-10, inclusive

Defendants.

On December 30, 2013,DefendantsCaliber Home Loans, Inc. and Federal Home

Loan Mortgage Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. (Dkt. No. 4.) The

Court set a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiffs to file a response by January 31, 

2014. (Dkt. No. 7.) To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition. 

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.” Civ. Local R. 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

- 1 - [13cv2803-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:13-cv-02803-GPC-RBB Document 10 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 2
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

oppose as consent to granting the motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474

(9th Cir. 1979). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the

district court “weigh[s] 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 the Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiffs’

failure to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The majority of these factors

weigh in favor of dismissal. 

Because Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, the

Court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss. The

Court’s docket reflects that Plaintiffs were served with a copy of the motion and the

Court’s briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to

dismiss as unopposed. See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

currently set for March 21, 2014, is VACATED. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. 

DATED: March 14, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - [13cv2803-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:13-cv-02803-GPC-RBB Document 10 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 2