Gomez v. Citibank, N.A. et al

Filing 10

ORDER Granting 4 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/17/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DXS)

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

ARNALDO O. GOMEZ,

9
10
11

2:11-CV-1451 JCM (GWF)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITIBANK, N.A., et al.,

12
13
14

Defendants.
ORDER

15

Presently before the court is defendants Citibank, N.A. and Mortgage Electronic Registration

16

Systems, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. #4). Defendant Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation

17

has filed a joinder. (Doc. #8). Plaintiff Arnaldo Gomez failed to file an opposition.

18

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted

19

as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

20

1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Where a

21

complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the

22

line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S.

23

at 557). However, where there are well pled factual allegations, the court should assume their

24

veracity and determine if they give rise to relief. Id. at 1950.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6
7
8
9
10

In light of the plaintiff’s failure to respond and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali,
the court finds dismissal appropriate.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ motion to
dismiss (doc. #4) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED October 17, 2011.

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

-2-