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