Barlow v. BNC Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' 33 motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Defendants LSI Title Company and G. Sheppard are DISMISSED as defendants in this action. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/28/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

WILLIAM C. BARLOW,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

BNC MORTGAGE, INC; et al.,

13

Defendants.

3:11-CV-0304-LRH-VPC
ORDER

14
15
16
17

Before the court is defendants LSI Title Company (“LSI”) and G. Sheppard’s (“Sheppard”)
motion to dismiss. Doc. #33.1 Plaintiff William C. Barlow (“Barlow”) did not file an opposition.
On May 11, 2006, Barlow purchased real property through a mortgage and note executed by

18

defendant BNC Mortgage. Barlow defaulted on his mortgage and defendants initiated foreclosure

19

proceedings.

20

Subsequently, on February 25, 2011, Barlow filed a complaint against defendants alleging

21

nine causes of action: (1) debt collection violations; (2) Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade

22

Practices Act, NRS 598.0923; (3) Nevada Unfair Lending Practices Act, NRS 598D.100;

23

(4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) NRS 107.080; (6) quiet title; (7) fraud;

24

(8) slander of title; and (9) abuse of process. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Thereafter, moving defendants

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docketing number.

1

filed the present motion to dismiss (Doc. #33) to which Barlow did not respond.

2

While the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any

3

motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion under LR 7-2(d), Barlow’s failure to

4

file an opposition, in and of itself, is an insufficient ground for dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46

5

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Before dismissing a case, a district court is required to weigh several

6

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

7

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; 4) the public policy favoring

8

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less dramatic sanctions. Id.

9

Here, these factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The need for the expeditious resolution of

10

cases on the court’s docket is strong. Moving defendants have an interest in resolving this matter in

11

a timely manner. Further, there is a lack of prejudice to the plaintiff because Barlow has shown an

12

unwillingness to continue litigating his complaint which weighs in favor of granting the motion.

13

Additionally, although public policy favors a resolution on the merits, the court finds that dismissal

14

is warranted in light of these other considerations.

15
16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #33) is

17

GRANTED. Defendants LSI Title Company and G. Sheppard are DISMISSED as defendants in

18

this action.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED this 28th day of March, 2012.

21
22
23

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26

2