Martineau v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

Filing 8

ORDER that Defendant's 6 Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 01/04/12.(ESL)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as successor) in interest to EMC Mortgage LLC,) formerly known as EMC Mortgage) ) Corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) Rockney Martineau, No. CV-11-2091-PHX-GMS ORDER 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6). The motion was 18 filed on October 31, 2011, along with notices of the motion and certificates of service. LRCiv 19 7.2(c) states that, “[t]he opposing party shall . . . have fourteen (14) days after service in a 20 civil or criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum.” Plaintiff has 21 failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion. Under LRCiv 7.2(i), such failure to respond “may 22 be deemed consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion 23 summarily.” 24 On November 21, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “file and serve responsive 25 memoranda to Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 6) before 5:00 p.m. on December 5, 2011.” (Doc. 26 7). The Court also warned Plaintiff that should he fail to comply with the Order, “[t]his could 27 result in the dismissal of [his] claim.” (Id.). 28 To date, Plaintiff has still not responded to Defendant’s Motion or requested an 1 extension of time to do so. The Court will therefore grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 2 pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(I). See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) 3 (holding that a district court did not err in summarily granting a defendant’s motion to 4 dismiss where the local rule stated that “[t]he failure of the opposing party to [respond] shall 5 constitute a consent to the granting of the motion” and where the pro se plaintiff “was given 6 ample time to respond” but failed to do so); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 7 1992) (upholding a district court’s dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failure to 8 comply with a court order). 9 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. 11 The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. 12 DATED this 4th day of January, 2012. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?