O 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 11 LISA FINN, et al., Case № 2:20-cv-1860-ODW (SKx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 13 DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED v. MOTION TO DISMISS [8] 14

15 WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., 16

17 Defendants. 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiffs Lisa Finn and Michael Finn, proceeding pro se, initiated this wrongful 21 foreclosure action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on 22 December 9, 2019. (Notice of Removal Ex. 1 (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants 23 removed the action to this Court on February 26, 2020, based on diversity jurisdiction. 24 (Notice of Removal 3, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs raise five causes of action related to the 25 alleged wrongful foreclosure of their property. (See Compl.) 26 On March 4, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint 27 (“Motion”) and served Plaintiffs with the Motion by United States mail at the address 28 Plaintiffs provided on the Complaint. (See Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 8, 1 Mot. Proof of Service, ECF No. 8-2; Compl. 1.) Defendants noticed the hearing on 2 the Motion for forty days later, on April 13, 2020. Thus, pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, 3 Plaintiffs’ opposition was due no later than March 23, 2020. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 4 (requiring oppositions to be filed no later than twenty-one days before the motion 5 hearing). However, to date, Plaintiffs have filed no opposition. For the reasons that 6 follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.1 7 II. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE WARRANTS DISMISSAL 8 Central District of California Local Rule 7-12 provides that the Court “may 9 decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline 10 set by order or local rule.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The failure to file [a responsive 11 document], or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the 12 granting or denial of the motion . . . .”); Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 13 1995) (affirming dismissal on the basis of unopposed motion pursuant to local rule). 14 Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (See Mot.) Prior to 15 dismissing an action pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: “(1) the public’s 16 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 17 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 19 Ghazali,

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 20 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to these factors are not required.” Ismail v. 21 Cty. of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJW),

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 22 Nov. 7, 2012) (citing Henderson,

; accord, Malone v. U.S. Postal 23 Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,

(1988)). In 24 Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit found these factors satisfied where the plaintiff received 25 notice of the motion, had “ample time to respond,” yet failed to do so. See Ghazali, 26

. 27

28 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 Here, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and set the hearing date on March 13, 2020, forty days after filing, in excess of time required under the 3 || Local Rules. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 6-1 (requiring a motion to be filed twenty-eight days 4|| before the date set for the hearing). Defendants served the Motion on Plaintiffs via 5 || United States mail on March 4, 2020. (See Proof of Service.) Thus, Plaintiffs had 6 || notice of the Motion and ample opportunity to respond. However, to date Plaintiffs have failed to oppose or otherwise respond. The record reflects that Plaintiffs have 8 | not engaged in this matter since filing the Complaint in Superior Court on December 9 || 9, 2019, despite being notified that the matter was being removed to federal court and 10 || that Defendants were seeking to dismiss the case. (See Notice of Removal Proof of 11 || Service, ECF No. 1; Mot. Proof of Service.) Plaintiffs offer no excuse for failing to 12 || oppose, nor have Plaintiffs sought an extension of time or any other relief. As such, 13 || the Court construes Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to Defendants’ Motion as consent to the Court granting it. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 and Ghazali, the 15 || Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. Defendants request dismissal with prejudice; 16 || however, in light of Plaintiffs’ pro se status, dismissal is without prejudice. 17 Ht. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 19 | (ECF No. 8) and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice. The Clerk of 20 || the Court shall close the case. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 May 20, 2020 25 wus 06 llisi 7 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 08 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE