Arthur Lopez v. Mufg Union Bank, N.A.
Summary of the case Arthur Lopez v. Mufg Union Bank, N.A.
Arthur Lopez appealed pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights and antitrust action related to a business loan transaction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, noting that Lopez failed to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was deemed consent to the motion under local rules.
Key Issues of the case Arthur Lopez v. Mufg Union Bank, N.A.
- Dismissal for failure to oppose motion
- Compliance with local rules
Key Facts of the case Arthur Lopez v. Mufg Union Bank, N.A.
- Lopez failed to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss
- The case involved a business loan transaction
Decision of the case Arthur Lopez v. Mufg Union Bank, N.A.
Affirmed
Opinions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR LOPEZ, No. 16-55491
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:15-cv-01354-JLS-KES
v. MEMORANDUM* MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arthur Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
civil rights and antitrust action arising from a business loan transaction. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
dismissal for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
* 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). 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lopez’s action
because Lopez failed to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-
12 (“The failure to file any required document . . . may be deemed consent to the
granting or denial of the motion . . . .”); Ghazali 46 F.3d at 53 (discussing factors
to guide the court’s evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55491