Angel Beltran v. NBS Default Services, LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. No. 11) and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand as Moot (Doc. No. 13) by Judge Virginia A. Phillips granting 11 MOTION to Dismiss (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (bm)

1

United States District Court
Central District of California

2

JS-6

3

SEPT 14, 2017

4
5

17-cv-05963-VAP-GJS

Angel Beltran,
Plaintiff,

6
7

Order Granting Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Complaint
(Doc. No. 11) and Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
as Moot
(Doc. No. 13)

v.

8

NBS Default Services, LLC et al.,

9

B
H

Defendant.

United States District Court
Central District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

On September 1, 2017, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA (“Defendant”) filed its
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(“Motion to Dismiss.”) (Doc. No. 11.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff Angel Beltran (“Plaintiff”) was required to
file his opposition “not later than twenty-one (21) days before the date designated
for the hearing of the motion,” on September 11, 2017. See L.R. 7-9. Plaintiff
Beltran did not file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand Case to the Los
Angeles Superior Court. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff improperly noticed his Motion to
Remand to be heard on October 2, 2017. See L.R. 6-1. (“The notice of motion shall
be filed with the Clerk not later than twenty-eight (28) days before the date set for
hearing . . . .”).
The Court finds that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand are appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78;
L.R. 7-15. After having considered the moving papers and the arguments therein,
the Court rules as follows.
“The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the
deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” L.R. 712. As Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
within the deadline specified by Local Rule 7-9, the Court deems Plaintiffs “consent
to the granting . . . of the motion.” Id. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
is GRANTED on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition as
required by Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

1

1

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED AS MOOT.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

9/14/17
Virginia A. Phillips
Chief United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
Central District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2