Schiavone v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting 12 Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice. Plaintiff's non- responsiveness in opposing these motions, but precise timing in filing her Amended Complaint, indicates that defendants are likely correct that "Plaintiff's acti on represents nothing more than a baseless attempt to delay foreclosure by any means necessary." (MTD 1.) Furthermore, our district's civil local rules explicitly provide that failure "to file... papers in the manner required... may constitute a consent to the granting of the motion...." (Civ. L.R. 7.1.f.3.c.) "Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal." Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). And in the present case Plaintiff should have been aware of this rule; the Court cited it in its prior dismissal Order. (ECF No. 10.). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/26/2017. (dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAMELA KING SCHIAVONE,

Case No.: 16cv2939-JLS (JLB)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

v.
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. AS TRUSTEE
FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION
TRUST; CALIBER HOME LOANS,
INC.; SUMMIT MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC; AND Does 1–100
Inclusive,

15
16
17
18

(ECF No. 12)

Defendants.

19
20
21

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint

22

(“MTD”). (ECF No. 12.) Defendants previously moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint,

23

(ECF No. 6), which the Court granted due to Plaintiff’s failure to oppose, (ECF No. 10;

24

see also ECF No. 9). Despite Plaintiff’s failure to oppose, the Court granted Plaintiff leave

25

to amend her Complaint within fourteen days. (ECF No. 10.) On the fourteenth day,

26

Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) Defendants have again moved to

27

dismiss, (ECF No. 12), and Plaintiff has again failed to oppose, (see ECF No. 14).

28

///
1
16cv2939-JLS (JLB)

1

Given the foregoing, the Court again GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and

2

this time does so WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s non-responsiveness in opposing these

3

motions, but precise timing in filing her Amended Complaint, indicates that Defendants

4

are likely correct that “Plaintiff’s action represents nothing more than a baseless attempt to

5

delay foreclosure by any means necessary.” (MTD 1.) Furthermore, our district’s civil local

6

rules explicitly provide that failure “to file . . . papers in the manner required . . . may

7

constitute a consent to the granting of the motion . . . .” (Civ. L.R. 7.1.f.3.c.) “Failure to

8

follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46

9

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). And in the present case Plaintiff should have been aware of

10
11
12

this rule; the Court cited it in its prior dismissal Order. (ECF No. 10.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 26, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv2939-JLS (JLB)