Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DOUGLAS HARRY, Case No.: 25-CV-3214 JLS (VET)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7.1(f)(3)(c) 14 WALTER PRONOZUK, et al., 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 3, 6) 16 17 Presently before the Court are Defendants Farmers Insurance and Truck Insurance 18 Exchange’s Motion to Dismiss and/or For a More Definitive Statement (ECF No. 3), and 19 Defendants Walter Pronozuk’s, Anne Pronozuk’s, Batta Fulkerson Law Group’s, and 20 Taylor Gaines’s Motion to Dismiss and/or For a More Definitive Statement (ECF No. 6). 21 No oppositions to the Motions have been filed. See generally Docket. For the reasons that 22 follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). 23 DISCUSSION 24 The Court set a hearing on the Motions for February 5, 2026, which was vacated 25 pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) on January 29, 2026. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff William 26 Douglas Harry did not file oppositions to either of the Motions in accordance with Local 27 Rule 7.1(e)(2). See CivLR 7.1(e)(2) (“Except as otherwise specified in Civil Local Rule 28 7.1.e.1, each party opposing a motion, application, or order to show cause must file that 1 opposition or statement of non-opposition with the Clerk and serve the movant or the 2 movant's attorney not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.”). 3 The Ninth Circuit has held that, pursuant to a local rule, a district court may properly 4 grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond to a motion. See Ghazali v. Moran, 5 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds by, Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 6 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition 7 papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond). Here, a local 8 rule allows the Court to grant the Motion. Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides: “If an 9 opposing party fails to file [an opposition] in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 10 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request 11 for ruling by the court.” 12 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must weigh several factors: 13 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 14 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 16 Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 17 1986)). The first and fourth factors cut in opposite directions. See Yourish v. Cal. 18 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999), superseded by statute on other grounds as 19 recognized in, Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423, 429 n.6 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he public’s 20 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”); Hernandez v. City 21 of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 401 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating the fourth factor weighs against 22 dismissal). The Court therefore considers the substance of factors two, three, and five. 23 Here, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court must manage its 24 docket to ensure the efficient provision of justice. Plaintiff had notice of the Motions yet 25 failed to file a timely opposition. Further, Plaintiff has not provided any excuse for his 26 failure to timely file an opposition. The Court cannot continue waiting for Plaintiff to take 27 action, and a case cannot move forward when the plaintiff fails to defend his case. Further, 28 Plaintiff is an attorney and nonetheless has failed to comply with the rules of procedure. 1 See Holt v. I.R.S., 231 Fed. App’x. 557, 558 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding court did not abuse 2 its discretion in dismissing action for failure to file an opposition and rejecting plaintiff’s 3 contention that the district court should have warned her of the consequences of failing to 4 file an opposition). 5 The third factor, which considers the prejudice to a defendant that results from a 6 plaintiff’s inaction, also favors dismissal. See Malone v. U.S.P.S., 833 F.2d 128, 131 7 (9th Cir. 1987). Under this factor, “the risk of prejudice . . . is related to [Plaintiff’s] reason 8 for defaulting in failing to timely” file his opposition. Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Where, 9 as here, a plaintiff fails to provide any excuse for his conduct or contact the Court regarding 10 said failure, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. See, e.g., Enders v. Countrywide 11 Home Loans, Inc., No. C 09-3213SBA, 2009 WL 4018512, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 12 Nov. 16, 2009). 13 As to the fifth factor, where the plaintiff does not oppose dismissal, it is “unnecessary 14 for the Court to consider less drastic alternatives.” Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 15 No. 16–CV–5962–ODW(SK), 2016 WL 4581402, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016). Still, 16 the Court did employ the less drastic alternative of waiting almost two months for any 17 response from Plaintiff. Therefore, this factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. 18 CONCLUSION 19 Finding that the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of granting the unopposed Motion, 20 the Court GRANTS Defendants Farmers Insurance and Truck Insurance Exchange’s 21 Motion to Dismiss and/or For a More Definitive Statement (ECF No. 3), and Defendants 22 Walter Pronozuk’s, Anne Pronozuk’s, Batta Fulkerson Law Group’s, and Taylor Gaines’s 23 Motion to Dismiss and/or For a More Definitive Statement (ECF No. 6) pursuant to Civil 24 Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 25 Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint curing the 26 deficiencies identified in Defendants’ Motions within thirty (30) days of the date on which 27 this Order is electronically docketed. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended pleading in 28 accordance with this Order, the Court will enter a final order dismissing this civil action 1 ||based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring 2 ||amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does 3 ||not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 4 || dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”’). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: March 20, 2026 on. Janis L. Sammartino 8 United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28