Ordaz v. Bank of America et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/22/14 ORDERING the matter was submitted on the briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the December 18, 2014, hearing was vacated. ECF No. 23 . In light of Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition, the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20 , is GRANTED. Moreover, because Plaintiff twice has failed to oppose a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, her claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 18 , is DENIED AS MOOT. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LYDIA ORDAZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-00564-MCE-KJN
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On February 26, 2014, Lydia Ordaz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Bank of

18

America, N.A. (“Bank of America”); The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New

19

York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWABS 2004-BC1 (“Mellon”); ReconTrust

20

Company, N.A. (“ReconTrust”); and Encore Credit Corporation (“Encore”) (collectively

21

“Defendants”). ECF No. 1. On August 11, 2014, Bank of America, Mellon, and

22

ReconTrust moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 8. In violation of Eastern District

24

Local Rule 78-230(c), Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition

25

to the motion. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

26

ECF No. 15. The Court also dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff’s claims against

27

Encore, which had neither appeared nor challenged the pleadings. Id. (citing

28

Abagninin v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742-42 (9th Cir. 2008)).
1

1

On October 21, 2014, Plaintiff timely filed the operative First Amended Complaint

2

against the same four defendants. ECF No. 16. Bank of America, Mellon, and

3

ReconTrust again filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”), ECF No. 20, as well

4

as a request that the Court take judicial notice of a trustee’s deed upon sale, ECF

5

No. 18. Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the Motion

6

and thus once again has violated Local Rule 78-230(c).

7

Because oral argument would not assist the Court, the matter was submitted on

8

the briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the December 18, 2014, hearing was

9

vacated. ECF No. 23. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition, the Motion to

10

Dismiss, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED. Moreover, because Plaintiff twice has failed to

11

oppose a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, her claims against all Defendants are

12

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Request for Judicial Notice, ECF

13

No. 18, is DENIED AS MOOT.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: December 22, 2014

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