Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lee v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division

February 5, 2015

HYUN YOUNG LEE, Plaintiff,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC., and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants

Hyun Young Lee, Plaintiff, Pro se, Los Angeles, CA.

For Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Defendant: John J Calvagna, LEAD ATTORNEY, Brian Andrew Paino, McGlinchey Stafford, Irvine, CA.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HON. GEORGE H. WU, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.'s (" Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment (the " Motion"). As of the date of this Order, plaintiff Hyun Young Lee (" Plaintiff") has not filed a response to the Motion and she failed to appear at the hearing thereon. Having considered the Motion, related filings and pleadings, and the record, the Court finds as follows:

I. Background

On November 13, 2014, Defendant moved for summary judgment on the Complaint filed in this action by Plaintiff, who is proceeding in propria persona .[1] Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, or indicated any desire or intent to do so, despite the fact that the hearing on the motion has been continued multiple times to its current hearing date, February 2, 2015.

II. Analysis

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment shall be granted when a movant " shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In other words, summary judgment should be entered against a party " who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Parth v. Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr., 630 F.3d 794, 798-99 (9th Cir. 2010).

To satisfy its burden at summary judgment, a moving party without the burden of persuasion " must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial." Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) ( en banc ); Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 532 (9th Cir. 2000).

If the party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of identifying for the court the portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party may not rely on the mere allegations in the pleadings in order to preclude summary judgment[, but instead] must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, and views all evidence and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See id. at 630-31 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)); see also Hrdlicka v. Reniff, 631 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2011); Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1075 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) ( en banc ); Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 860 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).

Plaintiff has not opposed the instant motion. In addition to the effect this failure has under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)[2], (c)(1)[3], (c)(3)[4], and (e)(2) and (3)[5], this Court's Local Rules 56-2 and 56-3 are relevant. While the Court cannot consider Plaintiff's non-opposition, in and of itself, as a basis to grant Defendant's motion, see C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12, Local Rule 56-2 requires any party opposing a summary judgment motion to file " a separate document containing a concise 'Statement of Genuine Disputes' setting forth all material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine dispute necessary to be litigated.'" C.D. Cal. L.R. 56-2. Plaintiff has submitted no Statement of Genuine Disputes, as a separate document or otherwise. Nor has she made any evidentiary objections, meaning that she has waived the opportunity to have excluded from consideration any inadmissible evidence. Local Rule 56-3 provides that, when deciding a motion for summary judgment,

the Court may assume that the material facts as claimed and adequately supported by the moving party are admitted to exist without controversy except to the extent that such material facts are (a) included in the " Statement of Genuine Disputes" and (b) controverted by declaration ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.