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

Filing 10

ORDER Granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. If the Murphy's think they can fix the problems identified by Wells Fargo, they may file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on or before 6/30/2017. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/23/2017. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES MURPHY AND TEANA
MURPHY,

CASE NO. 17cv364-LAB (AGS)

12
Plaintiffs,
13
14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

vs.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Failure to file an “opposition to any motion will be construed as consent to granting

18

the motion.” Standing Order § 4; see CivLR 7.1. Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss three

19

months ago. The Murphy’s never filed an opposition. The Court grants the motion to dismiss

20

without prejudice. Newman v. Lamont, 2011 WL 5909837 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011).

21

If the Murphy’s think they can fix the problems identified by Wells Fargo, they may file

22

a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on or before June 30, 2017. That motion

23

must also explain why the Court shouldn’t dismiss the action for failure to comply with the

24

Court’s rules. If the Murphy’s fail to file a motion addressing these issues, the Court will

25

dismiss the action with prejudice. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 23, 2017
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge