Case Information

O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEOPOLDO BRAVO, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 09-02736 DDP (CTx)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE v.

[Motion filed on April 27, 2009] ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC; LASALLE BANK N.A.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.,

Defendants.

___________________________

This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. ^[1] Because Plaintiff has neither filed an Opposition nor a Notice of non-Opposition to this Motion, the Court dismisses the portion of the Complaint against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. without prejudice.

Plaintiff Leopoldo Bravo (“Plaintiff”) originally filed a complaint on or about March 12, 2009 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Complaint asserts the following claims: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Accounting; (3) To Set Aside Notice of Default & Notice of Trustee’s Sale; (4) Cancellation of Instruments; (5) Quiet Title; (6) Injunctive Relief; (7) Damages; and (8) Beneficiary to Produce Original Note.

Essentially, the Complaint alleges that subject loan documents for a mortgage were not translated into Spanish and that Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is not the holder of the note. Plaintiff seeks to invalidate all subsequent transactions related to the loan, which Defendant Bank of America, N.A. eventually bought at a trustee’s sale on January 5, 2009. (Mot. to Dismiss 3.) On March 12, 2009 the case was removed to the United States District Court, Central District of California. On April 27, 2009, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. filed a Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”).

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition or a statement of non- opposition to any motion at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date designated for the hearing of the motion. See 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.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.

The hearing date on this Motion was June 22, 2009. Plaintiff’s Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition was therefore due on June 8, 2009. Plaintiff had not filed either such a statement by that date. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has still not filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion. As far as the Court can tell, Plaintiff has also not filed an amended complaint that would make moot the Motion to Dismiss, and has not filed any requests or other papers that could be construed as a request for an extension of time to file or a request to move the hearing date. Because Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion, the Court dismisses the portion of Plaintiff’s Complaint against Bank of America, N.A. without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 20 days of the date of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2009

DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge

[1] The Complaint erroneously names LaSalle Bank, N.A. as a defendant. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is the successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A.