Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association v. D.R. Horton, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER Granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs 1 complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Denying as moot 5 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/27/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

AZURE MANOR/RANCHO DE PAZ
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

ORDER
Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:14-CV-2222 JCM (NJK)

v.
D.R. HORTON, INC.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendant D.R. Horton’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s class

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

action allegations. (Doc. # 6). Plaintiffs have not filed a response and the deadline to do so has
passed.
Also before the court is defendant’s motion to stay litigation pending compliance with
NRS 40.600. (Doc. # 5).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing Bell
Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 557). However, where there are well pled factual allegations, the court
should assume their veracity and determine if they give rise to relief. Id. at 1950.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, an opposing party must file points and authorities in response
to a motion and failure to file a timely response constitutes the party’s consent to the granting of
the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. See LR IB 7-2(d); United States v. Warren, 601

1

F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required to weigh

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

6

1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

7
8
9

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

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant D.R.

11

Horton’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s class action allegations (doc. # 6) be, and the same hereby,

12

is GRANTED.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ complaint (doc. # 1) be dismissed without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to stay litigation pending
compliance with NRS 40.600 (doc. # 5) is hereby DENIED as moot.
DATED January 27, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-