Passick v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-00656 · 2024-07-08 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Myron James Lorenz (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:28Z · confidence low

Defendant HUD moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. The court granted the unopposed motion and dismissed all claims against HUD without prejudice.

What the court decided	The model
Grant of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss “HUD’s motion is therefore granted as unopposed.”	unsure The court granted the motion solely because the plaintiff failed to file an opposition within the time allowed, citing local rules and Ghazali v. Moran. While courts have discretion to grant unopposed motions, they are generally required to conduct an independent review of the legal and factual sufficiency of the motion, particularly when it involves dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order does not recite any facts or legal analysis supporting the jurisdictional defect or service failure, only the procedural default. Therefore, it is unclear if the dismissal was substantively correct, though the procedural basis for granting it as unopposed is standard.
Dismissal of Claims Without Prejudice “All claims asserted against Defendant HUD are dismissed without prejudice.”	agree with court Dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy when a case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or insufficient service, as it allows the plaintiff to cure the defect and refile. This follows from the nature of the grounds asserted in the motion (Rule 12(b)(1) and (5)).

What the court decided

The model

Grant of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

“HUD’s motion is therefore granted as unopposed.”

unsure
The court granted the motion solely because the plaintiff failed to file an opposition within the time allowed, citing local rules and Ghazali v. Moran. While courts have discretion to grant unopposed motions, they are generally required to conduct an independent review of the legal and factual sufficiency of the motion, particularly when it involves dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order does not recite any facts or legal analysis supporting the jurisdictional defect or service failure, only the procedural default. Therefore, it is unclear if the dismissal was substantively correct, though the procedural basis for granting it as unopposed is standard.

Dismissal of Claims Without Prejudice

“All claims asserted against Defendant HUD are dismissed without prejudice.”

agree with court
Dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy when a case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or insufficient service, as it allows the plaintiff to cure the defect and refile. This follows from the nature of the grounds asserted in the motion (Rule 12(b)(1) and (5)).

The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in that it correctly identifies the local rules governing unopposed motions and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Ghazali) regarding the court's discretion. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' decision because it fails to recite any facts or legal analysis supporting the underlying grounds for dismissal (lack of jurisdiction or insufficient service). It relies entirely on the plaintiff's failure to respond, without confirming that the motion itself was legally sufficient, which is a requirement under Ghazali.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 In re: THE VIDA L. EDDY LIVING Case No.: 24-cv-656-L-DDL TRUST 11 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 12 BRADLEY PASSICK, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 13 Plaintiff, DEVELOPMENT’S MOTION TO 14 v. DISMISS 15 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF [ECF No. 7] HOUSING AND URBAN 16 DEVELOPMENT, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendant United States Department of Housing and 20 Urban Development’s (“HUD”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 12(b)(1) and (5) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and insufficient service. 22 (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion within the time for filing an opposition 23 or otherwise request additional time to respond. See Civ. Loc. Rule 7.1.e.2. HUD’s 24 motion is therefore granted as unopposed. See Civ. Loc. Rule 7.1.f.3.c; Ghazali v. 25 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). All claims asserted against Defendant HUD 26 are dismissed without prejudice. 27 // 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||Dated: July 8, 2024 4 Wy James seas 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28