Opinion
CASE NO.: 2:10-cv-01293-KJD-LRL.
February 24, 2011
COLT B. DODRILL, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 9000, WOLFE WYMAN LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Attorneys for Defendant, CTX Mortgage Company, LLC and Kevin Gillespie.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
KEVIN GILLESPIE ("Gillespie") and CTX MORTGAGE COMPANY LLC ("CTX" collectively hereinafter "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Wolfe Wyman LLP, filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Docket No. 4) on August 4, 2010. The Docket Report indicates that a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was due by August 21, 2010.
Defendants, AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC ("Aurora"), RALPH LENZI, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. ("MERS") and R.K. ARNOLD filed a Joinder (Docket No. 8) on August 10, 2010.
Defendant MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS and Non-party FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE) filed a Joinder (Docket No. 14) on August 27, 2010.
Plaintiff, TINA SPANN-NEWELL, has failed to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss and Joinders thereto.
Defendant MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS and Non-party FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE) filed a Notice of Non-Response (Docket No. 21) on September 17, 2010.
The Court having considering the moving papers, its own files, and good cause appearing, FINDS as follows:
1. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), any Response and/or Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was required to be filed with the Court and served within fourteen (14) days after service of the Motion. No Response and/or Opposition has been submitted to the Court or served on opposing party within the prescribed timeline. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to file Points and Authority in response to any motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.
2. The Court may grant the Motion to Dismiss without a hearing where a Local Rule provides another party who has failed to timely file an Opposition is deemed to have waived any objection to the Motion. Eaton v. Reno, 216 F.3d 1082, 1082 (9th Cir. 2000).
3. The Court may grant the Motion to Dismiss for failure to follow local rules if these five factors weigh in favor of dismissal: "(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).
4. The Court finds that the five Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
5. The Court has reviewed Defendant's Motions, and finds them to have merit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that based on the foregoing, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and all joinders thereto are hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 24th day of February, 2010.