From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rothschild v. PHH Mortgage Corp.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 25, 2015
CV 15-3978-JFW (JCx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2015)

Opinion

          For Phillip Rothschild, an individual, Plaintiff: Odeha Warren, Law Office of Odeha Warren, Temecula, CA.

          For PHH Mortgage Corporation, HSBC Bank USA N.A., a national bank in its capacity as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust Series 2006-A4, Defendants: Scott M Pearson, Ballard Spahr LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

          For Aztec Foreclosure Corporation, Defendant: Keefe Erik Roberts, Keefe Roberts & Associates, PLC, Irvine, CA; Tracy L Anielski, Gary S Mobley Law Offices, Irvine, CA.


          PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [filed 6/4/15; Docket No. 19]

          HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On June 4, 2015, Defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, in its capacity as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Series 2006-A4 (collectively, " Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (" Motion"). On June 4, 2015, Defendant Aztec Foreclosure Corporation (" Aztec") filed a Notice of Joinder in Defendants' Motion. Plaintiff Phillip Rothschild (" Plaintiff") did not file an Opposition. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for July 6, 2015 is hereby vacated and the matter taken off calendar. After considering the moving papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules as follows:

         Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff was required to file and serve his Opposition or Notice of Non-Opposition " not later than twenty-one (21) days before the date designated for the hearing of the motion." See Local Rule 7-9. Local Rule 7-12 provides that " [t]he failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting . . . of the motion." See Local Rule 7-12. As of June 24, 2015, Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to file an Opposition or to otherwise comply with Local Rule 7-9 as consent to the granting of Defendants' Motion.

         Accordingly, Defendants' Motion, joined by Aztec, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rothschild v. PHH Mortgage Corp.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 25, 2015
CV 15-3978-JFW (JCx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2015)
Case details for

Rothschild v. PHH Mortgage Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Philip Rothschild v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Jun 25, 2015

Citations

CV 15-3978-JFW (JCx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2015)