In re: Rizalde Santos

Filing 43

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 19 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RIZALDE SANTOS,
Plaintiff,

8

(Re: Docket No. 19)

10

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

14
15
16
17

Before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint by Plaintiff Rizalde
Santos.1 Santos, who is represented by counsel, did not oppose the motion within the 14 days
allowed by Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Instead, Santos filed a belated opposition—only after Defendants
filed a reply brief noting the lack of any opposition—and offered no explanation for the delay.2
The court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument, pursuant to Civ. L.R. 71(b), and it is GRANTED as unopposed.

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

9

13

Case No. 16-cv-01197-PSG

Although Defendants sought dismissal without leave to amend on all claims, Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a) advises the court to grant leave “freely,” and the Ninth Circuit has directed that courts
should apply this policy “with extreme liberality.”3 As a result, the court is not persuaded that it
may deny leave to amend entirely. With respect to some causes of action, however, Santos’
belated opposition makes clear that further amendment would be futile.

23
24

1

See Docket No. 19.

25

2

See Docket Nos. 30, 31.

26

3

27
28

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v.
Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)).
1
Case No. 16-cv-01197-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

For example, Defendants argue that Santos’ twelfth cause of action, for injunctive relief,4

2

fails to state a claim because injunctive relief is not a standalone cause of action.5 Santos makes

3

no attempt to defend it.6 In addition, Defendants point out that Santos’ claims regarding allegedly

4

force-placed insurance—the third through ninth causes of action in his complaint, as well as

5

portions of the first and second7—are barred by res judicata due to a settlement in a class action,

6

where Santos was a member of the class.8 Even belatedly, Santos does not oppose Defendants’

7

request that the court take judicial notice of the documents related to the class action; nor does

8

Santos object to Defendants’ claim that he was a class member. Instead, Santos contends only that

9

the class action notice “was not sufficient to provide proper notice to a sufficient number of class

10

members.”9 In light of this perfunctory response, the court is satisfied that no further amendment

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

could salvage these claims.
Leave to amend, therefore, is granted only with respect to Santos’ tenth and eleventh

12
13

causes of action, as well as his first and second to the extent they do not relate to force-placed

14

insurance. The remaining claims are dismissed without leave to amend. Any amended complaint

15

shall be filed within 21 days.

16

SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: May 26, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21

See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 139-140.

5

See Docket No. 19 at 13.

6

See Docket No. 31.

7

See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 57-60, 66-68, 70-125.

8

22

4

See Docket No. 19 at 4-10.

9

Docket No. 31 at 9.

23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 16-cv-01197-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS