Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 15

ORDER: (1) Granting 11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; (2) Denying as Moot Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice; (3) Vacating Hearing Date. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is Dismissed Without Prejudice and the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, set for December 12, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., is Vacated. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/5/2014. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

RONALD MOORE, an individual,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

15
16

ORDER:
(1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS;

v.

(2) DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE;

13
14

CASE NO. 14cv1342-GPC-RBB

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a
business entity; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive,

(3) VACATING HEARING DATE
[Dkt. No. 11.]

Defendants.

17
18

On October 21, 2014, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) filed

19 a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Ronald Moore’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended
20 Complaint, as well as a Request for Judicial Notice. (Dkt. Nos. 11-13.) The Court
21 set a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiff to file a response by November 14, 2014.
22 (Dkt. No. 14.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
23

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an

24 opposition or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the
25 noticed hearing. Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the
26 granting of a motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion
27 to enact and apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply
28 with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming
-1-

14cv1342-GPC-RBB

1 grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se
2 litigant's failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion); United States v.
3 Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Before dismissing an action for failure
4 to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the
5 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy
7 favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
8 sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
9 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
10

Here, the Court concludes that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

11 of litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to
12 the defendants” weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss based on
13 Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The majority of
14 these factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
15

Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, the

16 Court finds good cause to grant Defendant’s unopposed motions to dismiss. The
17 Court’s docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the motion and the
18 Court’s briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to
19 dismiss as unopposed. See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
20 In addition, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s request for judicial notice,
21 without prejudice to any later re-filing.
22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is

23 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the hearing on Defendant’s Motion
24 to Dismiss, currently set for December 12, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., is VACATED.
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28
-2-

14cv1342-GPC-RBB

1
2
3
4

DATED: December 5, 2014
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

14cv1342-GPC-RBB