UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 14, 2010
MARITZA C. FORDE, PLAINTIFF,
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY; FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION; AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS [Motions filed on March 17, 2010]
This matter comes before the Court on motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by the defendants the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Aurora Loan Services, LLC. (Dkt. Nos. 8 & 9.) After reviewing the papers submitted by Defendants, the Court GRANTS the motions and adopts the following Order.
On October 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges that after Defendants prevailed in an unlawful detainer action against her, she filed for bankruptcy, thereby staying any actions against her. She alleges that Defendants violated the automatic stay provision of the bankruptcy code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), "by proceeding with a lockout of the subject property while the automatic stay was in effect." (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff also alleges a cause of action for fraud relating to closing costs and fees incurred as part of a residential mortgage transaction. (Id. ¶ 25.) On January 26, 2010, Defendants removed. Defendants filed the pending motions to dismiss on March 17, 2010, which were set for a hearing on April 12, 2010.
Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires that the non-moving party must file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion by no later than twenty-one days before the date designated for the hearing of the motion. C.D. Cal. Local R. 7-9. 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. Local R. 7-12. Pursuant to the local rules, Plaintiff's oppositions to Defendants' motions were due no later than March 22, 2010. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any response to Defendants' motions. The Court construes Plaintiff's failure to oppose the motions as consent to granting the motions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.