ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT JP MORGAN CHASE BANK [ECF No. 10] (2) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE [ECF No. 5].
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
On August 1, 2013, Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 5.) On August 2, 2013, Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 10.) Both motions were noticed for hearing on September 9, 2013. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), Plaintiff's opposition or statement of non-opposition was due by August 26, 2013. Plaintiff has filed no opposition or statement of non-opposition. The deadline has lapsed.
"The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond." Navarro v. Greenlight Fin. Servs., No. 10cv1631, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111018, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (citing Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), an opposing party's failure to file the papers as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) "may constitute a consent to the granting of [the] motion." "Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. However, a case cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Thus, this policy lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes or completely prevents progress in that direction." Navarro, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111018, at *4 (citations omitted). Furthermore, the Court's need to manage its docket and the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation favors dismissal.
On the basis of Plaintiff's failure to file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to the motions as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), the Court takes both pending motions under submission and grants them. The claims against Defendant Nationstar Mortgage and Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank are hereby DISMISSED. Because the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice would be an unnecessarily drastic sanction, the Court's dismissals are without prejudice. If Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint addressing the ...