Rocio Pineda v. Bank of America NA et al
Filing
17
MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING Defendant Bank of Americas Motion to Dismiss 11 and DISMISSING Case with Prejudice IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (ir)
<![CDATA[
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
#11
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 11-972 PSG (SPx)
Title
Rocio Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. et al.
Present:
Date
September 14, 2011
The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy K. Hernandez
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):
Not Present
Proceedings:
n/a
Tape No.
Not Present
(In Chambers) Order GRANTING Defendant Bank of America’s
Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSING Case with Prejudice
Pending before the Court is Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint. The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the moving papers, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion and DISMISSES the case with prejudice.
On May 25, 2011, Plaintiff Rocio Pineda (“Plaintiff”) filed this suit in California state
court against Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and Quality Loan Service
Corporation. On June 20, 2011, the case was removed to this Court, and on July 13, 2011,
Defendant Bank of America filed the present motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in its
entirety as against Bank of America. See Dkt # 11. Under Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff was
required to file and serve an opposition to the motion by August 29, 2011. Plaintiff did not file
an opposition by that date. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, the Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to
file a timely opposition to be consent to the granting of the motion. See L.R. 7-12. Accordingly,
the Court grants Defendant Bank of America’s motion. And as Plaintiff has failed to persuade
the Court that amendment would be efficacious, dismissal in this instance is with prejudice. See
Reddy v. Litton Indus., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) (indicating that dismissal of claims
with prejudice is proper when any proposed amendment would be “futile”).
In addition, the Court notes that on June 3, 2011, Defendant Quality Loan Service
Corporation filed a Declaration of Nonmonetary Status pursuant to California Civil Code §
2924l. See Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation’s Consent to Removal [Dkt # 3], Exh.
1. As no party filed an objection to that declaration within the fifteen-day period provided for by
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
#11
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 11-972 PSG (SPx)
Title
Date
September 14, 2011
Rocio Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. et al.
the statute, Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation is no longer required to participate in
the action. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2924l (c), (d).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Bank of America’s motion to
dismiss and DISMISSES this case, in its entirety, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
