Opinion
2:11-CV-00576-JCM-CWH.
August 29, 2011
ORDER
Presently before the court is defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et. al.'s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. #6).
Plaintiffs Velazquez, et. al. filed their complaint on April 15, 2011. (Doc. #1). Defendants filed the instant motion on April 18, 2011. (Doc. #6). Plaintiffs never responded to this motion. However, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 29, 2011. (Doc. #8). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), plaintiffs filed the amended complaint as of right. Defendants then filed an answer to the amended complaint on June 23, 2011. (Doc. #40).
Pursuant to Nevada Local Rule 7-2(d), "the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion." However, the court will not automatically grant every unopposed motion. In Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995), the Ninth Circuit held that the court had to weigh the following factors before dismissing the action: (1) the public 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.
In the present case, defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. #6) is moot. The parties have been litigating under the amended complaint filed on April 29, 2011, and the motion to dismiss pertains to the original complaint filed on April 15, 2011. Additionally, the court finds that the fourth Ghazali factor weighs heavily against dismissing the action. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Public policy favors disposing of cases on their merits, and it is not appropriate to dismiss this case based on a moot motion to dismiss. Id.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. #6) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.