Whiting et al v. Aurora Bank FSB et al

Filing 12

ORDER Granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants Aurora Bank, FSB and Quality Loan Service Corp. are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/5/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

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]

5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
JAY C. and SHERENE WHITING, Husband ) CASE NO. 2:11-cv-01968-GMN-PAL
8 and Wife,
)
)
9
Plaintiffs,
)
) ORDER GRANTING AURORA BANK,
10 v.
) ]PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
AURORA BANK, FSB’S AND QUALITY
) FSB'S AND QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
11 AURORA BANK, FSB; and QUALITY
LOAN SERVICE CORP’S MOTION TO
) CORP'S MOTION TO DISMISS
LOAN SERVICE CORP.,
) DISMISS
12
)
Defendants.
)
13
)
)
14
)
15

Defendants, Aurora Bank, FSB and Quality Loan Service Corp., filed a Motion to

16

Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) on December 13, 2011 (Docket No. 7).

17

The Docket Report and this Court’s Minute Order of December 14, 2011 indicates that a

18

Response to the Motion to Dismiss was due at the latest by December 31, 2011. No Response

19

has been filed.

20
21

The Court having considered the moving papers, its own files, and good cause appearing,
rules as follows:

22

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), any Response and/or Opposition to the Motion to

23

Dismiss was required to be filed with the Court and served within fourteen days after service of

24

the motion. No Response and/or Opposition has been filed by the Plaintiffs regarding this

25

matter. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to file Points and

26

Authorities in response to any Motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.

27

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

28

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995). Before dismissing the action, the district court is required
- 1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

The Court has considered these factors and finds that Plaintiffs have received notice and have

5

been given ample time to respond.

6
7
8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that based on the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED and Defendants, Aurora Bank, FSB and Quality Loan Service Corp., are hereby
dismissed with prejudice.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2012.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED this ____ day of January, 2012.

12
13
14

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 2