Case Name: Satish SHETTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLP; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-24
Citations: 696 F. App'x 834
Docket Number: No. 15-55661
Parties: Satish SHETTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 834–835

Head Matter:
Satish SHETTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55661
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 24, 2017
Satish Shetty, Pro Se
Marvin B. Adviento, Jonathan M. Zak, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA for Defendants-Appellees
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Satish Shetty appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his di versity action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Shetty's action because Shetty did not file an opposition to defendants' Fed. R, Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, request an extension of time to do so, or file an amended complaint. See id. (discussing factors to guide the court's evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (allowing a party 21 days to amend its pleading after sendee of a motion under Rule 12(b)); C.D. Cal, R. 7-9 (requiring the filing of an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion to dismiss not later than twenty-one days before the scheduled hearing date); C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (providing that the failure to file a required document may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.