Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant MTC Financial Inc. (ECF No. 60), as well as on the separate motion to dismiss filed by Defendants U.S. Bank, N.A. and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (ECF No. 61). Plaintiffs Katie Way, John Way, and Eddy Way (collectively, "Plaintiffs") do not oppose the motions. (ECF No. 69.) Accordingly, the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 60; ECF No. 61) are GRANTED. /// /// /// ///

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The operative complaint in this action is Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, filed on June 6, 2018. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, violations of section 2923.55 of California's Civil Code, and violations of section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code, all arising out of a bungled home loan modification from 2010. (ECF No. 58 at 1, 3.) Defendants MTC Financial, Inc.; U.S. Bank, N.A.; and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") filed motions requesting that the Court dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. (ECF No. 60 at 2; ECF No. 61 at 2.) Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. answered the Second Amended Complaint on July 20, 2018. (ECF No. 66.)

On July 31, 2018, following the issuance of an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 65) that went unacknowledged, the Court sanctioned Plaintiffs $250 for failing to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF No. 68). Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Declaration of Non-Opposition, stating that "Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants." (ECF No. 69 at 2.)

II. STANDARD OF LAW

A district court may properly dismiss a complaint on the basis that the plaintiff expresses no opposition to dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissing complaint pursuant to local rule where plaintiff failed to file opposition to motion to dismiss); Sidorov ex rel. Natalya v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. 2:17-CV-00002-KJM-DB, 2017 WL 2911676, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2017) ("Although a court may not grant a motion for summary judgment simply because there is no opposition, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly affirmed district courts that have dismissed a complaint on that basis." (citing Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54; United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 473 (9th Cir. 1979))). The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California contemplate that unopposed motions may be summarily granted. See L.R. 230(c) ("A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question.").

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs expressly consent to dismissal of their Second Amended Complaint as to Defendants without leave to amend. (ECF No. 69.) Based on this express consent and on the Court's authority to summarily grant unopposed motions to dismiss, see Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54, Plaintiffs' motions to dismiss (ECF No. 60; ECF No. 61) are hereby GRANTED without leave to amend.

IV. DISPOSITION

Defendants MTC Financial Inc.; U.S. Bank, N.A.; and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. are dismissed from this action. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., however, has answered the Second Amended Complaint (see ECF No. 66) and therefore remains an active named defendant in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 28, 2019

/s/_________

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge