Nunez v. Home Mortgage Direct Lenders et al

Filing 10

ORDERED that Ds' # 5 Motion to dismiss is GRANTED. P's complaint (Doc. # 1 , Exhibit A) is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/17/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

14

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

15

Before the court is defendants motion to dismiss. Doc. #5.1 Plaintiff Dionicia Nunez

9

DIONICIA NUNEZ

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

HOME MORTGAGE DIRECT LENDERS;
et al.,

13
Defendants.

16
17

3:12-cv-0073-LRH-VPC
ORDER

(“Nunez”) did not file an opposition.
In November 2006, Nunez purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of

18

trust. Plaintiff defaulted on the property and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure

19

proceedings. Subsequently, Nunez filed a complaint against defendants. Doc. #1, Exhibit A.

20

Thereafter, defendants filed the present motion to dismiss to which Nunez did not respond. Doc. #5.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

cases on the court’s docket is strong. Defendants have an interest in resolving this matter in a timely

6

manner. Further, there is a lack of prejudice to Nunez because she has shown an unwillingness to

7

continue litigating her complaint which weighs in favor of granting the motion. Additionally,

8

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

9

in light of these other considerations.

10
11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #5) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. #1, Exhibit A) is DISMISSED in its entirety.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.

15
16

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2