Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

WEAVILL v. MORTGAGE, 11-05541 SBA. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20120515886 Visitors: 14
Filed: May 11, 2012
Latest Update: May 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge. On November 16, 2011, Plaintiff Doris Weavill ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against Defendants, alleging three state law causes of action arising out of a foreclosure proceeding on her residence. Compl., Dkt. 1. On January 20, 2012, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A. formerly known as Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, formerly known as World Savings Bank, Fsb ("Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss under
More

ORDER

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

On November 16, 2011, Plaintiff Doris Weavill ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against Defendants, alleging three state law causes of action arising out of a foreclosure proceeding on her residence. Compl., Dkt. 1. On January 20, 2012, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A. formerly known as Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, formerly known as World Savings Bank, Fsb ("Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 9. Defendant noticed its motion to dismiss for hearing on May 15, 2012. Id.

Under Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff's opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss was due no later than twenty-one (21) days before the hearing date, i.e., on or before April 24, 2012. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). This Court's Standing Orders specifically warn that "failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion." Civil Standing Orders at 5, Dkt. 2. Notwithstanding the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-3 and this Court's Standing Orders, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss in the manner prescribed by this Court's Local Rules is a proper ground for dismissal. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Here, although Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition is a proper ground to grant Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court will afford Plaintiff the opportunity to file a response to the motion by no later than seven (7) days from the date this Order is filed. The Court, however, warns Plaintiff that the failure to file a timely response will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court). In the event that Plaintiff fails to file a timely response to the motion, Defendant shall promptly notify the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer