From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tarr v. Select Portfolio Servicing

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jun 24, 2015
Case No. 2:15-CV-964 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Jun. 24, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 2:15-CV-964 JCM (CWH)

06-24-2015

GEORGE TARR, Plaintiff(s), v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, et al., Defendant(s).


ORDER

Presently before the court is defendants Bank of America, N.A. and First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust's motion to dismiss complaint. (Doc. # 5). Plaintiff's response was due by June 18, 2015. Plaintiff has not filed a response or sought an extension from the court.

"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent' with a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 557). However, where there are well pled factual allegations, the court should assume their veracity and determine if they give rise to relief. Id. at 1950.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, an opposing party must file points and authorities in response to a motion and failure to file a timely response constitutes the party's consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. See LR IB 7-2(d); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required to weigh several factors: "(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

In light of plaintiff's failure to respond and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali, the court finds dismissal of plaintiff's complaint (doc. # 1-1) appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants Bank of America, N.A. and First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust's motion to dismiss complaint (doc. # 5) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The case is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED June 24, 2015.

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Tarr v. Select Portfolio Servicing

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jun 24, 2015
Case No. 2:15-CV-964 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Jun. 24, 2015)
Case details for

Tarr v. Select Portfolio Servicing

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE TARR, Plaintiff(s), v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Jun 24, 2015

Citations

Case No. 2:15-CV-964 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Jun. 24, 2015)