NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATISH SHETTY, No. 15-55661
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01402-JFW-
MRW
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLP; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Satish Shetty appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his diversity action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to
comply with local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We
*
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).
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Shetty’s action
because Shetty did not file an opposition to defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
motion, request an extension of time to do so, or file an amended complaint. See
id. (discussing factors to guide the court’s evaluation of dismissal for failure to
comply with local rules); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (allowing a party 21
days to amend its pleading after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)); C.D. Cal.
R. 7-9 (requiring the filing of an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a
motion to dismiss not later than twenty-one days before the scheduled hearing
date); C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (providing that the failure to file a required document may
be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-55661