The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Otis D. Wright II United States District Judge
Order GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss  and DENYING AS MOOT the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Continue Date for Hearing 
Presently before the Court is Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W2 and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, LLC's ("Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Kale Kepekaio Gumapac and Dianne Lee Gumapac's ("Plaintiffs") Complaint. (Dkt. No. 5.) Because Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition, and for the reasons discussed in Defendants' papers, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing 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 Defendants' Motion was set for March 12, 2012. Plaintiffs' opposition was therefore due by February 20, 2012. Because February 20, 2012, was a court holiday, Plaintiffs' opposition was therefore due by February 21, 2012. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(C). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, nor any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance. Plaintiff's failure to oppose may therefore be deemed consent to the granting of Defendant's Motion.
Nevertheless, the Court has carefully considered Defendant's arguments in support and finds them well taken. The Court specifically notes that Plaintiffs bring their Complaint in federal court based upon Plaintiffs' theory that diversity of citizenship exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs allege that both Plaintiffs and Ticor Title Insurance, Inc.-named as a "party and participant" in this matter-are citizens of Hawaii. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15.) In addition, Plaintiffs fail to plead that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this case. For this reason, and for the additional reasons discussed in Defendants' papers, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. The March 12, 2012 hearing on this matter is VACATED, and no appearances are necessary. In addition, the parties' February 24, 2012 Joint Stipulation to Continue Hearing (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, provided they can allege in good faith additional facts to support their claims and this Court's jurisdiction over such claims. If Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days, the Court will dismiss all claims against Defendants with prejudice.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...