ORDER

LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.

Before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss. Doc. #2.1 Plaintiffs Hipolito and Bertha Nevarez ("the Nevarezes") did not file an opposition.

In November 2007, the Nevarezes refinanced real property through a mortgage note and deed of trust. The Nevarezes defaulted on the property and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.

Subsequently, the Nevarezes filed a complaint against defendants. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Thereafter, defendants filed the present motion to dismiss to which the Nevarezes did not respond. Doc. #2.

While the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion under LR 7-2(d), the Nevarezes's failure to file an opposition, in and of itself, is an insufficient ground for dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Before dismissing a case, a district court is required to weigh several factors: (1) the public's interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; 4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less dramatic sanctions. Id.

Here, these factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The need for the expeditious resolution of cases on the court's docket is strong. Defendants have an interest in resolving this matter in a timely manner. Further, there is a lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs because the Nevarezes have shown an unwillingness to continue litigating their complaint which weighs in favor of granting the motion. Additionally, although public policy favors a resolution on the merits, the court finds that dismissal is warranted in light of these other considerations.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. #2) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. #1, Exhibit A) is DISMISSED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.