Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Valdez v. Homeq Servicing Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 18, 2009

JUAN M. VALDEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION AND DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Motion filed on August 14, 2009]

This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant. Because Plaintiff has neither filed an Opposition nor a Notice of non-Opposition to this Motion, the Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff Juan M. Valdez, appearing pro se, filed this suit in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 7, 2009. His Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) undue influence, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) breach of contract, (5) declaratory relief, and (6) cancellation of foreclosure. On August 5, 2009, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Thereafter, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the Motion.

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to any motion at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date designated for the hearing of the motion. C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-9. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that "[t]he failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion."

C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-12.

The hearing date on these Motions was September 21, 2009. Plaintiff's Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition was therefore due on September 7, 2009. Plaintiff had not filed either such a statement by that date. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has still not filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion. As far as the Court can tell, Plaintiff has also not filed an amended complaint that would make moot the Motions to Dismiss, and has not filed any requests or other papers that could be construed as a request for an extension of time to file or a request to move the hearing date. Because Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to do so, he may file an amended complaint within 20 days of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090918

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.