Laura E. Landry v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS UNOPPOSED 13 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Finding that the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting Defendants' motions to dismiss as unopposed, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion t o dismiss WITH PREJUDICE. As Plaintiff has not shown any intention to participate in this lawsuit, the Court dismisses the complaint as to all Defendants. The scheduled hearings on the motions to dismiss 13 are hereby vacated and taken off calendar. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (smo)

JS-6
O

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8
9
10

LAURA E. LANDRY,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case № 2:17-cv-02894-ODW (GJS)

v.

ORDER GRANTING

13

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

14

INC.; U.S. BANK, N.A.; ALL PERSONS

DISMISS AS UNOPPOSED [13]

15

UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL

16

OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE,

17

ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN AND

18

TO THE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN

19

AS “787-789 ST. LOUIS AVENUE,

20

LONG BEACH, CA 90804”; and DOES 1

21

through 10,
Defendants.

22
23

Plaintiff Laura E. Landry filed this case on March 21, 2017, asserting several

24

causes of action related to Defendants’ purported mishandling of Plaintiff’s mortgage.

25

(ECF No. 1-1.) On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint. (ECF

26

No. 11.) Then, on June 2, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and served it on

27

Plaintiff the same day. (ECF No. 13.) The motion noticed a hearing for July 10,

28

2017. (Id.)

1
2

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on June 19, 2017. See
C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. However, Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition.

3

Local Rule 7-12 allows the Court to grant motions as unopposed in the event

4

that a timely opposition is not filed. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d

5

52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal on the basis of unopposed motion where

6

local rule permitted such a dismissal). In determining whether to grant an unopposed

7

motion courts weigh the following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

8

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

9

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

10

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53

11

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Ninth

12

Circuit has recognized that the first and fourth factors cut in opposite directions. See

13

Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (first factor always

14

weighs in favor of dismissal); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 401 (9th

15

Cir. 1998) (fourth factor always weighs against dismissal).

16

Here, the second factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court must

17

manage its docket to ensure the efficient provision of justice. Plaintiff had notice of

18

the motion yet failed to file a timely opposition. Further, Plaintiff has not provided

19

any excuse for her failure to timely file an opposition. The Court cannot continue

20

waiting for Plaintiff to take action.

21

As for the fifth factor, where the plaintiff does not oppose dismissal it is

22

“unnecessary for the Court to consider less drastic alternatives.”

23

Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 2:16-CV-5962-ODW(SK), 2016 WL 4581402, at *1

24

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016).

Rodriguez v.

25

Finding that the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting Defendants’ motions

26

to dismiss as unopposed, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss WITH

27

PREJUDICE. As Plaintiff has not shown any intention to participate in this lawsuit,

28

the Court dismisses the complaint as to all Defendants. The scheduled hearings on the

2

1

motions to dismiss are hereby vacated and taken off calendar. The Clerk of Court

2

shall close the case.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 21, 2017

7
8
9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3