Way v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 74

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/28/2019 GRANTED without leave to amend, Motions to Dismiss 60 , and 61 . MTC Financial Inc., U.S. Bank, N.A., and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. are DISMISSED from this action. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. however, has answered the Second Amended Complaint and therefore remains an active named defendant in this matter.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

KATIE WAY, JOHN WAY, and EDDY
WAY,
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15
16
17

No. 2:16-cv-02244-TLN-KJN

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO DISMISS

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; U.S.
BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9
MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST;
MTC FINANCIAL INC. doing business as
TRUSTEE CORPS,

18

Defendants.

19
This matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant MTC

20
21

Financial Inc. (ECF No. 60), as well as on the separate motion to dismiss filed by Defendants

22

U.S. Bank, N.A. and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (ECF No. 61). Plaintiffs Katie Way, John Way,

23

and Eddy Way (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) do not oppose the motions. (ECF No. 69.)

24

Accordingly, the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 60; ECF No. 61) are GRANTED.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

I.

2

The operative complaint in this action is Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, filed on

3

June 6, 2018. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of contract, intentional infliction

4

of emotional distress, negligence, violations of section 2923.55 of California’s Civil Code, and

5

violations of section 17200 of California’s Business and Professions Code, all arising out of a

6

bungled home loan modification from 2010. (ECF No. 58 at 1, 3.) Defendants MTC Financial,

7

Inc.; U.S. Bank, N.A.; and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed motions

8

requesting that the Court dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. (ECF

9

No. 60 at 2; ECF No. 61 at 2.) Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. answered the Second

10

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Amended Complaint on July 20, 2018. (ECF No. 66.)

11

On July 31, 2018, following the issuance of an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 65) that

12

went unacknowledged, the Court sanctioned Plaintiffs $250 for failing to file an opposition or a

13

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF No. 68). Plaintiffs

14

thereafter filed a Declaration of Non-Opposition, stating that “Plaintiffs do not oppose the

15

Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants.” (ECF No. 69 at 2.)

16

II.

STANDARD OF LAW

17

A district court may properly dismiss a complaint on the basis that the plaintiff expresses

18

no opposition to dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissing

19

complaint pursuant to local rule where plaintiff failed to file opposition to motion to dismiss);

20

Sidorov ex rel. Natalya v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. 2:17-CV-00002-KJM-DB, 2017 WL

21

2911676, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2017) (“Although a court may not grant a motion for summary

22

judgment simply because there is no opposition, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly affirmed district

23

courts that have dismissed a complaint on that basis.” (citing Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d

24

943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54; United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 473 (9th

25

Cir. 1979))). The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

26

California contemplate that unopposed motions may be summarily granted. See L.R. 230(c) (“A

27

responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a

28

statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question.”).
2

1

III.

ANALYSIS

2

Plaintiffs expressly consent to dismissal of their Second Amended Complaint as to

3

Defendants without leave to amend. (ECF No. 69.) Based on this express consent and on the

4

Court’s authority to summarily grant unopposed motions to dismiss, see Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54,

5

Plaintiffs’ motions to dismiss (ECF No. 60; ECF No. 61) are hereby GRANTED without leave to

6

amend.

7

IV.

DISPOSITION

8

Defendants MTC Financial Inc.; U.S. Bank, N.A.; and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. are

9

dismissed from this action. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., however, has answered the

10

Second Amended Complaint (see ECF No. 66) and therefore remains an active named defendant

11

in this matter.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 28, 2019

14
15
16
17

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3