Jose Luis Bobadilla v. Security National Mortgage Company, a Utah corporation - Lender;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS BOBADILLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECURITY NATIONAL MORTGAGE
COMPANY, a Utah corporation - Lender; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-56152
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-05732-PSG-ADS
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
NOV 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-56152
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 of 2 --