Eun Ju Oh v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AS UNOPPOSED 13 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court GRANTS Countrywides Motion, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims against Countrywide, with prejudice. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5

United States District Court
Central District of California

6
7
8
9

EUN JU OH, an individual,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case № 2:18-cv-01975-ODW (SKx)

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING

v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC;

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

AZTEC FORECLOSURE

DISMISS AS UNOPPOSED [13]

CORPORATION; THE BANK OF NEW
YORK MELLON, AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE STRUCTURED ASSET
MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II TRUST
2006-AR7 W/A/T/A THE BANK OF NEW
YORK MELLON, FKA THE BANK OF
NEW YORK, AS SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE TO JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
HOLDERS OF SAMI II TRUST 2006AR7,
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AR7;
COUNTRYWIDE BANK; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

I.

1

INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2

On October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Eun Ju Oh filed this action against several

3

defendants, including Countrywide Bank, N.A., in Los Angeles Superior Court. (ECF

4

No. 1-1.) On March 9, 2018, Defendants removed the case to this court. (Id.)

5

Plaintiff asserts several claims related to a loan she obtained in conjunction with the

6

purchase of real property.

7

On June 1, 2018, Countrywide filed and served its Motion to Dismiss pursuant

8

to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 13.) The Motion

9

was scheduled to be heard on July 2, 2018. (See id.) On June 26, 2018, the Court

10

took this matter under submission after finding it suitable for decision without oral

11

argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Pursuant to Local Rules 7-9

12

and 7-10, Plaintiffs’ Opposition was due to be filed on June 11, 2018, and any Reply

13

was due to be filed on June 18, 2018. Plaintiff has not opposed Countrywide’s

14

Motion.

15

II.

PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO OPPOSE WARRANTS DISMISSAL

16

Central District Local Rule 7-12 allows the Court to grant motions as

17

unopposed in the event that a party does not respond. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The

18

failure to file [a responsive document] may be deemed consent to the granting or

19

denial of the motion….”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming

20

dismissal on the basis of unopposed motion pursuant to local rule). In determining

21

whether to grant an unopposed motion, courts weigh: “(1) the public’s interest in

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

its docket to ensure the efficient provision of justice.

Plaintiff had notice of

5

Countrywide’s Motion to Dismiss, yet failed to oppose it. Further, Plaintiff has not

6

provided any excuse for failing to oppose the motion, or sought an extension. The

7

Court’s need to manage its docket favors granting the Countrywide’s Motion to

8

Dismiss, as unopposed.

9

The third factor addresses the potential risk of prejudice to defendants. Here,

10

the risk of prejudice to Countrywide is slight. If, after the Court grants the Motion,

11

Plaintiff does not seek reconsideration or other relief, then Countrywide will have

12

been dismissed. In the event that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration, and the Court grants

13

it, Countrywide may simply refile the motions it already prepared.

14

As for the availability of less drastic sanctions, Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the

15

motion to dismiss demonstrates that Plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting this

16

action against Countrywide. See Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 2:16-CV-

17

5962-ODW(SK), 2016 WL 4581402, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016) (“Where the

18

Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal, it is unnecessary for the Court to consider less

19

drastic alternatives.”); see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Plaintiff is represented by

20

counsel, and thus cannot claim ignorance of deadlines. Furthermore, on March 13,

21

2018, the Court issued a minute order advising that “Counsel are STRONGLY

22

encouraged to review the Central District’s website for additional information.” (ECF

23

No. 4.) The Court intended this admonition to provide fair warning to counsel that

24

they need to be familiar with the Local Rules, which provide the requisite deadlines to

25

oppose motions like the one currently pending before the Court. More than two

26

weeks have passed since the deadline for Plaintiff to oppose the Motion, but Plaintiff

27

still has not sought relief from the Court. While there may be less drastic sanctions

28

available, this factor does not weigh heavily in either direction.

3

1

On balance, the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting Countrywide’s

2

Motion to Dismiss as unopposed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Countrywide’s

3

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 13.)

4

III.

CONCLUSION

5

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Countrywide’s Motion

6

(ECF No. 13), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against Countrywide, with

7

prejudice.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 3, 2018
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

4