Mathys et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/13/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 GUY P. MATHYS; HEIDI S. MATHYS,
12

Plaintiffs,

13 v.
14 J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et
al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 13cv928 L (KSC)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS [doc. #6] and CLOSING
CASE

Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; U.S. Bank National Association as successor

18 trustee to Bank of America, N.A. for Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities I, LLC, Series 200719 HE5; EMC Mortgage LLC f/k/a EMC Mortgage Corporation (erroneously sued as Bear Stearns
20 Residential Mortgage Corporation fdba EMC Residential Mortgage Corporation); and Mortgage
21 Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Bank of America, N.A., as successor by merger to LaSalle
22 Bank National Association, as trustee for Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities I, LLC, Series
23 2007-HE5 move to dismiss this action. The motion was set for hearing on June 10, 2013.
24

Under the Civil Local Rules, plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion was due on or

25 before June 3, 2013. See CIV. L.R. 7.1.e.2. But plaintiffs have not opposed the motion nor have
26 they sought additional time in which to respond to the motion to dismiss.
27

Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides that "[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the

28 manner required by Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of
13cv928

1 that motion or other ruling by the court." When an opposing party receives notice under Federal
2 Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b) and is given sufficient time to respond to a motion to dismiss, the
3 Court may grant the motion based on failure to comply with a local rule. See generally Ghazali
4 v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file
5 timely opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond).
6

Here, plaintiffs were properly served with defendants’ motion, which was filed on April

7 25, 2013, and therefore they had almost six weeks to oppose the motion. Because the motion to
8 dismiss is unopposed, and relying on Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c), the Court deems plaintiffs’
9 failure to oppose as consent to granting defendants’ motion.
10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

11 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 DATED: June 13, 2013
14
15

M. James Lorenz
United States District Court Judge

16 COPY TO:
17 HON. KAREN S. CRAWFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

13cv928