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)
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?