Anguiano v. Bank Of America et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting 8 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim without Prejudice. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 12/3/2013. (sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 RIGOBERTO M. ANGUIANO,
12

Plaintiff,

13 v.
14 BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 13-cv-1035-L(BLM)
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE [DOC. 8]

On May 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint. (Doc. 1.) On September 5, 2013,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this action in its entirety. (MTD [Doc. 8].) On September
6, 2013, the Court issued a scheduling order which required Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to
Dismiss on November 1, 2013. (Scheduling Order [Doc. 9].) Plaintiff has not opposed the
motion as of the date of this order.
Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the
manner required by Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of
that motion or other ruling by the court.” The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may
properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46
F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition
papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond).
Therefore, relying on Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c), the Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to
13cv1035

1 adequately oppose Defendants’ motion as consent to granting it. In light of the foregoing, the
2 Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Doc. 8.)
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 DATED: December 3, 2013
5
6

M. James Lorenz
United States District Court Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13cv1035

2