United States District Court, C.D. California
Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Not Present.
Attorneys for Defendants: Not Present.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
The Honorable GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order re:
(1) Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Case (Dkts. 38, 41); (2) Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, and Toby Wells's Motion to Strike (Dkt. 43); (3) Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, and Toby Wells's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 46); (4) Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, and Toby Wells's Motion to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (Dkt. 47)
This matter is before us on Defendants' above-captioned Motions. We have considered the papers filed in support of these Motions and deem them appropriate for resolution without oral argument. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, we rule as follows:
The deadline for Plaintiff to file a timely opposition to the Motions has passed. See L.R. 7-9. Local Rule 7-12 provides:
Failure to File Required Papers.
The Court may decline to consider any memorandum or other paper not filed within the deadline set by order or local rule. The 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.
Thus, a failure to file an opposition is deemed non-opposition to the Motion and consent to granting the relief sought. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and this action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. Despite Plaintiff's non-opposition, the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is nonetheless DENIED. There is no counterclaim against Plaintiff in this case on which we could grant the relief requested by Defendants.
As for the Motion to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant, while we do not condone Plaintiff's behavior in this litigation, particularly her repeated filing of irrelevant notices and other papers with the court, we exercise our discretion not to enter such an Order at this time. If Plaintiff persists in litigating the issues involved in this case, which Defendants claim were already litigated for several years in a previous case in state court, we may ...