Correos et al v. National Default Servicing Corporation et al

Filing 26

ORDER Granting 23 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The case is hereby dismissed as to Defendant National Default Servicing Corporation without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 09/10/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

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

HAROLD CORREOS, et al.,

9
10
11
12
13

2:12-CV-556 JCM (RJJ)

Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is defendant National Default Servicing Corporation’s motion to

17

dismiss. (Doc. # 23). Plaintiffs Harold Correos and Rosemarie Correos 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(d), 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

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

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant National Default

9

Servicing Corporation’s motion to dismiss (doc. # 23) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The

10

case is hereby dismissed as to defendant National Default Servicing Corporation without prejudice.

11

DATED September 10, 2012.

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

-2-