Sandridge et al v. Universal Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 26

ORDER Granting 16 Motion to Dismiss and 17 Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/18/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

JACK D. SANDRIDGE; BOONYUEN
SANDRIDGE,

5

Plaintiffs,
vs.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

UNIVERSAL MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS);
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC
HOME LOANS SERVICING LP FKA
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING LP,

13

Defendants.
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00640-GMN-GWF
ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) filed by Defendants.

16

Also pending before the Court is the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens (ECF No. 17) filed

17

by Defendants. Plaintiffs have failed to file a Response to either of the pending motions.

18

For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and will dismiss

19

Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiffs Jack D. Sandridge and Boonyuen Sandridge originally filed this lawsuit

22

on March 27, 2013 in Nevada state court. (Pet. for Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No.

23

1-1.) Defendants removed the case to this Court on April 16, 2013. (Pet. for Removal,

24

ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges five causes of action against Defendants

25

related to foreclosure proceedings that were initiated against Plaintiffs’ property:

Page 1 of 3

1

(1) wrongful foreclosure; (2) quiet title; (3) fraud; (4) set aside unlawful trustee’s sale;

2

and (5) injunctive relief. (Compl. ¶¶ 35–76.)

3

On September 4, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16.)

4

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District

5

Court for the District of Nevada, Plaintiffs had fourteen days after service of the Motion

6

to file a Response. Furthermore, the Court twice provided Plaintiffs with lengthy

7

extensions of this deadline. (See ECF Nos. 21, 24.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs had until

8

April 15, 2014, to file a Response. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have failed to file a response.

9

II.

10

DISCUSSION
Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points

11

and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the

12

motion.” D. Nev. R. 7-2(d). As the Ninth Circuit has held, “[f]ailure to follow a district

13

court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53

14

(9th Cir. 1995); see, e.g., Roberts v. United States of America, No. 2:01-cv-1230-RLH-

15

LRL, 2002 WL 1770930 (D. Nev. June 13, 2002). However, before dismissing a case for

16

failing to follow local rules or for failure to prosecute, the district court must weigh five

17

factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s

18

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the

19

availability of less drastic sanctions; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of

20

cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).

21

Under this test, “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always

22

favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Also, the

23

Court’s need to manage its docket is manifest. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.

24

Ireland, No. 2:07-cv-01541-RCJ-RJJ, 2009 WL 4280282 (D. Nev. Nov. 30, 2009).

25

Further, Plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to Defendants’ motion has unreasonably

Page 2 of 3

1

delayed the resolution of this case, and such unreasonable delay “creates a presumption

2

of injury to the defense.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986).

3

Less drastic sanctions available to the Court include dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint

4

without prejudice.

5

The fifth factor also does not weigh in favor of Plaintiffs because it is not clear

6

that this case was likely to be decided on the merits. Plaintiffs have failed to take any

7

action since the Motion to Dismiss was filed. Even if the Court were to reach the merits

8

of this action, each of Plaintiffs claims either fails as a matter of law or is rendered moot

9

by the May 13, 2013, Notice of Rescission. (Mot. to Dismiss Ex. J, ECF No. 16-10.) See

10

also Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(5) (requiring a court to declare a trustee’s sale void if the

11

trustee failed to comply with the requirements of section 107.080). Accordingly, the

12

Court concludes that consideration of the five factors discussed above weighs in favor of

13

dismissal.

14

III.

15

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) and the

16

Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED

17

without prejudice.

18

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

19

18
DATED this ___ day of April, 2014.

20
21
22

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

23
24
25

Page 3 of 3