JOSE BOBADILLA V. SECURITY NATIONAL MORTGAGE COM, No. 20-56152 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS BOBADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-56152 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-05732-PSG-ADS MEMORANDUM* SECURITY NATIONAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, a Utah corporation - Lender; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Bobadilla appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing defendants Security National Mortgage Company (“SNMC”) and National Mortgage Servicing Corporation (“NDSC”) from his action alleging * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal under its local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bobadilla’s claims against SNMC and NDSC after Bobadilla failed to file a timely opposition to these defendants’ motions to dismiss as required by the district court’s local rules. See id. at 53-54 (factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to follow a district court’s local rules; where the district court does not make explicit findings concerning the factors, “we review the record independently to determine whether [it] abused its discretion”); see also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural rules as other litigants). We reject as meritless Bobadilla’s contentions that the district court judge was biased against him. AFFIRMED. 2 20-56152

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.