Henry F. Lewis v. PNC Bank, N.A.

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. Nos.11,12 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The hearing on Defendants' motion was noticed for January 27, 2014. Plaintiff's opposition was therefore due by January 3, 2014. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the court deems Plaintiff's failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion to dismiss, and GRANTS the motion. In light of this order, Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint (Dkt No.12) is vacated as moot. (bp)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HENRY F. LEWIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PNC BANK, N.A.,

15

Defendant.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-07174 DDP (ASx)
ORDER GRANTUNG DEFENDANTS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS
[DKT Nos. 11, 12]

16
17

Presently before the court is Defendant PNC Bank, N.A.’s

18

Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt No. 11.) Plaintiff

19

Henry F. Lewis has not opposed the motion.

20

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Accordingly, the court

21

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

or denial of the motion.”

28

///

Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that

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

1

The hearing on Defendants’ motion was noticed for January 27,

2

2014.

3

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition

4

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

5

continuance.

6

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

7

motion.

8
9

Plaintiff’s opposition was therefore due by January 3, 2014.

Accordingly, the court deems Plaintiff’s failure to

In light of this Order, Defendants’s Motion to Strike Portions
of Complaint (Dkt No. 12) is vacated as moot.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: February 13, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2