Perez et al v. Wells Fargo, N.A. et al

Filing 12

ORDERED that Ds' # 4 Motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Ps' complaint (Doc. # 1 , Exhibit A) is DISMISSED in its entirety. FURTHER ORDERED that Ds' # 11 Motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot. 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

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

9
ARTURO PEREZ and MARIA VIEIRA
10
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17

3:12-cv-0106-LRH-WGC
ORDER

Before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. #4.1 Plaintiffs Arturo Perez and
Maria Vieira (collectively “plaintiffs”) did not file an opposition.
In August 2006, plaintiffs purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of trust.

18

Plaintiffs defaulted on the property and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.

19

Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Thereafter,

20

defendants filed the present motion to dismiss to which plaintiffs did not respond. Doc. #4.

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), plaintiffs’ 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 the plaintiffs because they have shown an

7

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

8

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

9

is warranted in light of these other considerations.

10
11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #4) is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint (Doc. #1, Exhibit A) is DISMISSED in its entirety.

13
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #11) is DENIED as
moot.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.

17
18

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2