Vishwajit Roy v. Wells Fargo Bank et al

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 9 Motion to Dismiss. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (shb)

1

5

2
3

O

4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

VISHWAJIT ROY, an
individual,

13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
16
17

WELLS FARGO BANK, a
financial institution, RTS
PACIFIC INC., d/b/a REGIONAL
TRUSTEE CORPORATION, a
financial institution,

18
19

Defendants.
___________________________

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

Case No. CV 14-09560 DDP (MANx)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
[Dkt. No. 9]

20
21

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

22

Plaintiff has filed no opposition papers, nor any request for an

23

extension of time to file.

24

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an

25

opposing party to file an opposition or a statement of non-

26

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

27

date designated for hearing the motion.

28

Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to file any required

L.R. 7-9.

Additionally,

1

paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed

2

consent to the granting or denial of the motion.”

3

L.R. 7-12.

The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for

4

January 26, 2015. Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of

5

non-opposition was therefore due by January 5, 2015.

6

date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any response to

7

Defendant’s Motion, or any other papers that could be construed as

8

a request for an extension of time to file or a request to move the

9

hearing date.

As of the

Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to

10

oppose consent to granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

11

The

motion is GRANTED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: January 28, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

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