Espinoza v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 7 Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation's Motion to Dismiss: the Court GRANTS QLS' motion to dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against QLS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to continue litigating this case against QLS, he SHALL FILE an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies raised in QLS' motions within 14 days of the date that this Order is electronically docketed. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/18/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCO A. ESPINOZA, CASE NO. 11-CV-920 JLS (WVG) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: GRANTING DEFENDANT QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS vs. 13 14 15 GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; et al., (ECF No. 7) Defendants. 16 17 18 On March 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed this pro se action against Defendants Green Tree Servicing, 19 LLC and Quality Loan Service Corporation (QLS). (Notice of Removal, ¶ 1, ECF No. 1; see 20 generally Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) On June 6, 2011, QLS moved to dismiss the claims against it 21 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 (QLS MTD, ECF No. 7.) The Court set a July 22 21, 2011 hearing date on QLS’ motion. (Id.) Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1), Plaintiff’s opposition 23 to the motion was due by July 7, 2011. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(e)(1). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an 24 opposition . (See Notice of Pl.’s Non-Opp’n, ECF No. 10.) 25 “The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss 26 pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for 27 1 28 Defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC separately moved to dismiss the claims against it. (Green Tree MTD, ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff opposes Green Tree’s motion. (Opp’n to Green Tree MTD, ECF No. 4.) -1- 11cv920 1 failure to respond.” Navarro v. Greenlight Fin. Servs., 2010 WL 4117444, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2 2010) (Anello, J.) (citing Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under Civil Local Rule 3 7.1(f)(3)(c), “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner requested by Civil Local Rule 4 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by 5 the court.” Rule 7.1(e)(2) requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of non- 6 opposition no later than fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing, unless otherwise provided by court 7 order. 8 Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, see, e.g., Hernandez v. City 9 of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998), “a case cannot move forward toward resolution on the 10 merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,” 11 Navarro, 2010 WL 4117444, at *2. “Thus, this policy lends little support to a party whose 12 responsibility is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes or 13 completely prevents progress in that direction.” Id. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution 14 of litigation, the Court’s need to manage its docket, and the potential prejudice to Moving Defendants 15 all weigh in favor of dismissal. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The Court finds that dismissal of this 16 action pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) serves to vindicate these interests given that several 17 cases similar to this one are currently pending and awaiting resolution. 18 QLS requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s motion without leave to amend. (Notice of Pl.’s Non- 19 Opp’n 2–3.) Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court considers dismissal with 20 prejudice premature. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS QLS’ motion to dismiss and DISMISSES 21 Plaintiff’s claims against QLS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to continue litigating 22 this case against QLS, he SHALL FILE an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies raised in 23 QLS’ motions within 14 days of the date that this Order is electronically docketed. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 28 DATED: July 18, 2011 Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge -2- 11cv920

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?