Bank of America, N.A. v. Arizona Labor Force, Incorporated et al
ORDER Granting Defendant Arizona Labor Force, Incorporated's 88 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/9/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Case No. 2:13-CV-1819 JCM (GWF)
LAKE LAS VEGAS SOUTHSHORE
Presently before the court is defendant Arizona Labor Force, Incorporated’s (“ALFI”)
motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 88). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) has not filed a
response, and the period to do so has since passed.
On February 4, 2015, ALFI filed a disclaimer of interest as to the property at issue—
specifically, 34 Grand Corniche Drive, Henderson, NV (the “property”)—as well as a release of
its lis pendens related to the property. (ECF No. 37).
On August 28, 2015, BANA filed an amended complaint seeking to quiet title/declaratory
relief against ALFI. (ECF No. 39). The amended complaint sets forth exactly one allegation
against ALFI: “Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Arizona
Labor Force, Incorporated (‘Arizona Labor Force’) is an Arizona Corporation doing business in
Clark County, Nevada and claims or may claim an interest in the Property.” (ECF No. 39 at 4,
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Further, to date, no proper proof of service for the amended complaint (ECF No. 37) has
been filed as to ALFI.
In the instant motion, ALFI moves to dismiss the claims alleged against it in BANA’s
amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 88).
Responses were due by February 2, 2017, and BANA has not filed a response or a request for an
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), “the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities
in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” LR 7-2(d).
Thus, by failing to file a timely response, BANA has consented to the granting of ALFI’s motion
to dismiss. See United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–75 (1958) (holding that local rules have
the force of law).
Nevertheless, before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a local rule, the court
considers several factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy
favoring disposition of cases o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).
After weighing these factors and reviewing the underlying filings, the court finds dismissal
appropriate and will grant ALFI’s motion to dismiss. Notwithstanding BANA’s consent by
nonopposition, dismissal of BANA’s claims against ALFI is also appropriate pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as the amended complaint’s sole allegation relating to ALFI falls
short of sufficiently stating a claim.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that ALFI’s motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 88) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED February 9, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?