Filed: May 17, 2012
Latest Update: May 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. 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. Plaintiffs defaulted on the property and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Thereafter, defendants
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. 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. Plaintiffs defaulted on the property and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Thereafter, defendants ..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
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. Plaintiffs defaulted on the property and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Thereafter, defendants filed the present motion to dismiss to which plaintiffs did not respond. Doc. #4.
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), plaintiffs' 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 they 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. #4) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. #1, Exhibit A) is DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. #11) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
