NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CEDRIC D. TURNER; RACHEL L. No. 18-55535
THOMAS-TURNER,
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-08256-JFW-E
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Cedric D. Turner and Rachel L. Thomas-Turner appeal pro se from the
district court’s order dismissing their action alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal
*
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).
pursuant to its local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We
reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed appellants’ action with prejudice because
appellants failed to file and serve an opposition or notice of non-opposition to
defendant’s motion to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-9. However, dismissal was
premature because appellants’ time to amend their complaint as a matter of course
had not yet expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (a party “may amend its
pleading once as a matter of course . . . within 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b) . . . ”); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (discussing factors to guide the
court’s evaluation of a dismissal for failure to comply with the local rules).
In light of our disposition, we do not consider the district court’s order
denying appellants’ motions for reconsideration.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 18-55535