Bailey v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 13

ORDER Granting 10 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/8/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

SHIRLEY J. BAILEY,

9
10
11

2:11-CV-725 JCM (GWF)

Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

12
13

Defendant.

14
15
16
17

ORDER
Presently before the court is defendant Wells Fargo Bank’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. #10).
To date, no response has been filed.

18

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), an opposing party’s failure to file a timely response to any

19

motion constitutes the party’s consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for

20

dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the

21

district court is required to weigh several factors: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution

22

of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)

23

the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

24

sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d

25

1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

In light of the plaintiff’s failure to respond and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali,
the court finds dismissal appropriate.

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant’s motion to

3
4

dismiss (doc. #10) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED August 8, 2011.

5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-