Stokes v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 23, 2019 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION RONALD SHANE STOKES, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION H-18-2652 § BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and § PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, § § Defendant. § ORDER Pending before the court is the defendants’, Bank of America, N.A. and PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 16) and notice of no response (Dkt. 24). Having reviewed the motion, the evidentiary record, and the applicable law, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On July 24, 2019, the court entered an Order extending plaintiff’s time to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 23. On August 15, 2019, plaintiff’s withdrawn counsel, Robert Lane, certified that he had served plaintiff with a copy of defendants’ motion and this court’s order granting plaintiff additional time to respond. Dkt. 25. Plaintiff has never responded to the motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. 24. According to the local rules, a failure to timely respond to a pending motion “will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4. Nevertheless, a “motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition, even if failure to oppose violated a local rule.” Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Admin. Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985)). Defendants still have “the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless [they] ha[ve] done so, the court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any response was filed.” See Hetzel, 50 F.3d at 362 n.3. However, a district court may accept as undisputed the facts set forth in the motion. See Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (Sth Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted). The court has examined the record and applicable law and is satisfied that, for the reasons set forth in defendants’ motion for summary judgment, no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (Sth Cir. 1994) (en banc). Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED. Signed at Houston, Texas on September 23, 2019. Gray H. Miller Senior □□ Se ic Judge