Kale Kepekaio Gumapac et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: GRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint 5 . The March 12, 2012 hearing on this matter is VACATED, and no appearances are necessary. In addition, the parties February 24, 2012 Joint Stipulation to Co ntinue Hearing 12 is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, provided they can allege in good faith additional facts to support their claims and this Courts jurisdiction over such claims. If Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within 14 days, the Court will dismiss all claims against Defendants with prejudice. (lc) Modified on 2/28/2012 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KALE KEPEKAIO GUMAPAC and
DIANNE LEE GUMAPAC,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.

Plaintiffs,

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TURST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS FOR ARGENT SECURITIES,
INC., ASSET-BACKED PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006-W2; DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS FOR
ARGENT SECURITIES, INC., ASSETBACKED PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-W2;
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, LLC.; ARGENT
SECURITEIS; and DOES 1–10,

Case No. 2:11-cv-10767-ODW (CWx)
Order GRANTING Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss [5] and DENYING AS
MOOT the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to
Continue Date for Hearing [12]

Defendants.

23
24
25

Presently before the Court is Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust

26

Company, as Trustee for Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through

27

Certificates, Series 2006-W2 and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, LLC’s

28

(“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Kale Kepekaio Gumapac and Dianne Lee

1

Gumapac’s (“Plaintiffs”) Complaint. (Dkt. No. 5.) Because Plaintiffs have not filed

2

any opposition, and for the reasons discussed in Defendants’ papers, the Court

3

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

4

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file

5

an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated

6

for hearing the motion. C. D. Cal. L. R. 7-9. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides

7

that “[t]he failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline,

8

may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” C. D. Cal. L. R. 7-

9

12.

10

The hearing on Defendants’ Motion was set for March 12, 2012. Plaintiffs’

11

opposition was therefore due by February 20, 2012. Because February 20, 2012, was

12

a court holiday, Plaintiffs’ opposition was therefore due by February 21, 2012. See

13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(C). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have not filed an

14

opposition, nor any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance.

15

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose may therefore be deemed consent to the granting of

16

Defendant’s Motion.

17

Nevertheless, the Court has carefully considered Defendant’s arguments in

18

support and finds them well taken. The Court specifically notes that Plaintiffs bring

19

their Complaint in federal court based upon Plaintiffs’ theory that diversity of

20

citizenship exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs allege that both

21

Plaintiffs and Ticor Title Insurance, Inc.—named as a “party and participant” in this

22

matter—are citizens of Hawaii. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15.) In addition, Plaintiffs fail to plead

23

that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.00.

24

§ 1332(a). Accordingly, this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this case. For

25

this reason, and for the additional reasons discussed in Defendants’ papers, the Court

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

See 28 U.S.C.

1

hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The March

2

12, 2012 hearing on this matter is VACATED, and no appearances are necessary. In

3

addition, the parties’ February 24, 2012 Joint Stipulation to Continue Hearing (Dkt.

4

No. 12) is DENIED AS MOOT.

5

Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days from the

6

date of this Order, provided they can allege in good faith additional facts to support

7

their claims and this Court’s jurisdiction over such claims. If Plaintiffs fail to file an

8

amended complaint within fourteen (14) days, the Court will dismiss all claims

9

against Defendants with prejudice.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

February 27, 2012

14
15
16

____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3