United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank's Motion
to Dismiss Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) Because Plaintiffs Louie
Guevara and Rosemarie Guevara ("Plaintiffs") have
not filed any opposition, and for the reasons discussed in
Defendant's papers, the Court GRANTS
case arises out of a defaulted mortgage loan, impending
foreclosure, and related efforts to avoid and remedy said
foreclosure, of Plaintiffs' property. (Mot. 2.)
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Ventura County Superior
Court on March 26, 2016. (ECF No. 1-1; "Compl.")
Defendant removed the action to this Court and filed the
present Motion to Dismiss on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 11.) To
date, no Opposition has been filed.
may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of a
cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts pleaded to
support an otherwise cognizable legal theory. Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
Cir. 1990). To survive a dismissal motion, a complaint need
only satisfy the minimal notice pleading requirements of Rule
8(a)(2)-a short and plain statement of the claim. Porter
v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). The factual
"allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). That is, the
complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
determination whether a complaint satisfies the plausibility
standard is a "context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense." Id. at 679. A court is generally
limited to the pleadings and must construe all "factual
allegations set forth in the complaint . . . as true and . .
. in the light most favorable" to the plaintiff. Lee
v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). But
a court need not blindly accept conclusory allegations,
unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences.
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988
(9th Cir. 2001).
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." CD.
Cal. L.R. 7-12.
Motion to Dismiss was originally set for hearing on, making
any Opposition due on or before June 6, 2016. To date, no
Opposition has been filed. Plaintiffs have therefore failed
to comply with Local Rule 7-9, and pursuant to Local Rule
7-12, that failure will be deemed consent to granting of the
motion. Enders v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No.
C 09-3213SBA, 2009 WL 4018512, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16,
2009) ("The Ninth Circuit has held that the failure to
file an opposition to a motion to dismiss is grounds for
granting the motion." (quoting Ghazali v.
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)).
Complaint alleges that Defendant induced Plaintiffs into
securing an unaffordable loan and subsequently violated
various provisions of the Homeowners Bill of Rights. (ECF No.
1-1.) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to plead the
required elements of every cause of action and failed to
plead sufficient facts to constitute any claim for relief.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs' failure to oppose the
Motion to Dismiss is in effect a concession that their claims
lack merit. As a result, and for the reasons discussed in
Defendant's papers, dismissal of those claims without
leave to amend is appropriate.
reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank's Motion to Dismiss ...