Brooks et al v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc and Aurora Loan Services are dismissed. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/1/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Case 2:11-cv-00531-GMN -RJJ Document 15

1
2
3
4
5

Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 2

Kristin A. Schuler-Hintz, Esq., Nevada SBN 7171
Christopher M. Hunter, Esq., Nevada SBN 8127
McCarthy & Holthus, LLP
9510 W. Sahara, Suite 110
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendants:
Aurora Loan Services and MERS

6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

AARON P. BROOKS AND ALISA R.
BROOKS,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC.; )
)
AXIOM FINANCIAL INCORPORATED;
)
AURORA LOAN SERVICES;
)
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, )
INC.; and JOHN DOES I and II, and JOHN )
)
DOES 3 through 10, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.

Case No.: 2:11-cv-00531-GMN-RJJ

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

[PROPOSED] ORDER AURORA
DISMISS FILED BY GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY
LOAN SERVICES AND
AURORA LOAN SERVICES AND
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.

18
19

Defendant, Defendants, Aurora Loan Services (“Aurora”) and Mortgage Electronic

20

Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS” and collectively “Defendants”), by and through its counsel

21

of record, Christopher M. Hunter, Esq., of McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, filed a Motion to Dismiss

22

(“Motion”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)56 on May 13, 2011 (Docket No. 13). The

23

Docket Report indicates that a Response to the Motion was due by May 31, 2011. No Response

24

has been filed.

25

The Court having considered the moving papers, its own files, and good cause appearing,

26

rules as follows:

27

1.

28

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), any Response and/or Opposition to Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment was required to be filed with the Court and served within

- 1

Case 2:11-cv-00531-GMN -RJJ Document 15

Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 2

1

fourteen days after service of the motion. No Response and/or Opposition has been filed by the

2

Plaintiff regarding this matter. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to

3

file Points and Authorities in response to any Motion shall constitute consent to the granting of

4

the motion.

5

2. The Court may grant the Motion to Dismiss for failure to follow local rules. Ghazali

6

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995). Before dismissing the action, the district court is required

7

to weigh several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

8

court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

9

favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

10

The Court has considered these factors and finds that Plaintiff has received notice and has been

11

given ample time to respond.

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that based on the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss is

13

GRANTED and Defendants, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and Aurora Loan

14

Services are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
without prejudice.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ____ day of June, 2011.

17

_______________________________________

18
19

Respectfully submitted,

20

McCarthy & Holthus

21

_____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Court

By: /s/Christopher M. Hunter
Christopher M. Hunter

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 2