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.

Khan v. Indymac Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 23, 2009

VALENTINA KHAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson

Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Motion filed on September 14, 2009]

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Indymac Bank's Motion to Dismiss. Because Plaintiff has neither filed an Opposition nor a Notice of non-Opposition to the Motion, the Court dismisses the Complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff Valentina Khan brought this action on February 13, 2009. Her Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) violations of the Truth In Lending Act; (2) violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; (3) violations of the Home Owner Equity Protection Act; (4) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; and (6) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

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 on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for October 26, 2009. Plaintiff's Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition was therefore due by October 12, 2009. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any response to Defendant's Motion, nor any other papers that could be construed as a request for an extension of time to file or a request to move the hearing date. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to oppose the Motion consent to: (1) granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, with prejudice; and (2) expunging the lis pendens that Plaintiff recorded in the official records of Riverside County, California in February 2009. Defendant's request for attorneys' fees is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20091023

© 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.