Phillips et al v. Fremont Investment & Loan Company et al

Filing 25

ORDER that plas shall file and serve a responsive memorandum to 15 MOTION to Dismiss on or before 5:00 p.m. on 3/10/10. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/1/10. (LAD)

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

WO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

NEIL S. PHILLIPS; YVONNE M.) ) PHILLIPS ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN; et) ) al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

No. CV-09-2585-PHX-GMS ORDER

On December 10, 2009 Plaintiffs Neil S. Phillips and Yvonne M. Phillips ("Plaintiffs") filed a pro se Complaint against multiple defendants alleging violations of both federal and state law. (Dkt. # 1.) Shortly thereafter, on January 22, 2010, Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation ("Quality") moved to be dismissed from this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. # 15.) Quality argues that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to explain how Quality is involved in this action and does not identify any facts supporting the claims against Quality. (Id. at 1­2.) Plaintiffs have failed to file a response to Quality's Motion. Local Rule 7.2(c) provides that "[t]he opposing party shall . . . have fourteen (14) days after service in a civil or criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum" to a defendant's Motion to Dismiss. As of March 1, 2010, Plaintiffs have not filed a timely responsive memoranda to the Motion to Dismiss, nor have they sought extensions of time to do so.

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

Under the Local Rules, if a party "does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." LRCiv. 7.2(i); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53­ 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file and serve a responsive memorandum to Quality's Motion (Dkt. # 15) on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2010. Should Plaintiffs fail to comply, the Court may deem Plaintiffs' failure to oppose the Motion as a waiver, and may grant the motion on that basis. DATED this 1st day of March, 2010.

-2-