Ana Celia Galindo et al v. Mortgageit, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER GRANTING Defendants Mortageit, Inc. 15 and Ticor Title Company of California's Motions to Dismiss 14 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, or any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the court deems Plaintiffs failure to oppose as consent to granting the motions to dismiss, and GRANTS both motions. (sch)

1
2

O

3
4

no JS-6

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ANA CELIA GALINDO; RENE
GALINDO ALVAREZ, as Husband
and Wife as Joint Tenant,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18
19

v.
MORTGAGEIT, INC., a business
entity form unknown; TICOR
TITLE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,
a business entity form
unknown; MAI REALTY GROUP, a
business entity for unknown;
MORTGAGE ELECTORNIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., a
business entity from
unknown,

20
21

Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 10-04509 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
MORTAGEIT, INC. AND TICOR TITLE
COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS

[TWO (2)Motions filed on
12/21/10]

22
23

Presently before the court is Defendant Mortgageit, Inc.’s

24

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Dkt. No. 15) and Defendant

25

Ticor Title Company of California’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’

26

Complaint (Dkt. No. 14).

27

opposition, the court GRANTS both

28

///

Because Plaintiffs have not filed an
motions.

1

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an

2

opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-

3

one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion.

4

C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-9.

5

“[t]he failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file

6

it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or

7

denial of the motion.”

8
9

Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that

C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-12.

The hearings on Defendants’ motions were set for January 31,
2011 and February 7, 2011.

Plaintiffs’ oppositions were therefore

10

due by January 10, 2011 and January 17, 2011, respectively.

11

the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, or

12

any other filing that could be construed as a request for a

13

continuance.

14

oppose as consent to granting the motions to dismiss, and GRANTS

15

both motions.

As of

Accordingly, the court deems Plaintiffs’ failure to

16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated: May 17, 2011
21

DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2