Bank of America, N.A. v. Arizona Labor Force, Incorporated et al

Filing 91

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:13-CV-1819 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

v.
LAKE LAS VEGAS SOUTHSHORE
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION,

12

Defendant(s).

13
14

Presently before the court is defendant Arizona Labor Force, Incorporated’s (“ALFI”)

15

motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 88). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) has not filed a

16

response, and the period to do so has since passed.

17

On February 4, 2015, ALFI filed a disclaimer of interest as to the property at issue—

18

specifically, 34 Grand Corniche Drive, Henderson, NV (the “property”)—as well as a release of

19

its lis pendens related to the property. (ECF No. 37).

20

On August 28, 2015, BANA filed an amended complaint seeking to quiet title/declaratory

21

relief against ALFI. (ECF No. 39). The amended complaint sets forth exactly one allegation

22

against ALFI: “Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Arizona

23

Labor Force, Incorporated (‘Arizona Labor Force’) is an Arizona Corporation doing business in

24

Clark County, Nevada and claims or may claim an interest in the Property.” (ECF No. 39 at 4,

25

¶14).1

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Further, to date, no proper proof of service for the amended complaint (ECF No. 37) has
been filed as to ALFI.

1

In the instant motion, ALFI moves to dismiss the claims alleged against it in BANA’s

2

amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 88).

3

Responses were due by February 2, 2017, and BANA has not filed a response or a request for an

4

extension.

5

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), “the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities

6

in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” LR 7-2(d).

7

Thus, by failing to file a timely response, BANA has consented to the granting of ALFI’s motion

8

to dismiss. See United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–75 (1958) (holding that local rules have

9

the force of law).

10

Nevertheless, before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a local rule, the court

11

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

12

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

13

favoring disposition of cases o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”

14

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

15

After weighing these factors and reviewing the underlying filings, the court finds dismissal

16

appropriate and will grant ALFI’s motion to dismiss. Notwithstanding BANA’s consent by

17

nonopposition, dismissal of BANA’s claims against ALFI is also appropriate pursuant to Federal

18

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as the amended complaint’s sole allegation relating to ALFI falls

19

short of sufficiently stating a claim.

20

Accordingly,

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that ALFI’s motion to dismiss

22
23
24
25

(ECF No. 88) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED February 9, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-