Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK T. RHEA AND REBECCA S. Case No.: 25cv2163-LL-SBC RHEA, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, 13 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS v. 14 [ECF No. 22] FCA US, LLC; and DOES 1through 10, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by 19 Defendant FCA US, LLC. ECF No. 22. The Motion was filed and served on June 15, 2026, 20 with a noticed hearing date of July 20, 2026. ECF No. 22. As of this date, Plaintiffs have 21 failed to file an Opposition, and Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. See Docket; 22 see also ECF No. 24. The Court finds this matter suitable for determination on the papers 23 submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. 24 Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition 25 or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. Failure 26 to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” S.D. 27 Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, 28 1 including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. See Ghazali v. 2 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court's 3 local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 4 Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 5 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Only in rare cases will we question the exercise of discretion in 6 connection with the application of local rules.”). Before dismissing an action for failure to 7 comply with local rules, the Court must weigh several factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 8 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 9 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their 10 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting 11 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 12 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) and the undersigned’s Civil Chambers Rules, 13 Section 3, Plaintiffs opposition or statement of non-opposition was due no later than July 14 6, 2026. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(e)(2) (“[E]ach party opposing a motion . . . must file that 15 opposition or statement of non-opposition . . . no[] later than fourteen (14) calendar days 16 prior to the noticed hearing.”) (emphasis removed); Linda Lopez, U.S. District Judge, Civil 17 Chambers Rule 3.B (hereinafter “Chambers Rules”) (“Opposition . . . briefs are due based 18 on the noticed hearing date.”) (citing S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(e)). Almost two months have 19 passed since Plaintiffs’ response deadline, and no opposition or statement of non- 20 opposition has been filed. Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose constitutes Plaintiffs’ consent to 21 granting the Motion. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(f)(3)(c) (“If an opposing party fails to file the 22 papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may constitute a 23 consent to the granting of a motion . . . .”); Chambers Rules, Section 3.J (“An opposing 24 party’s failure to file an opposition to any motion may be construed as consent to the 25 granting of the motion . . . .”). 26 Based on the Court’s review of the pleadings and the docket in this case, the Court 27 finds that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need to 28 manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendant” all weigh in favor of 1 || granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. As to the fifth factor, where the 2 || plaintiff does not oppose dismissal, it is “unnecessary to consider less drastic alternatives.” 3 || Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 2:16-cv-5962-ODW(SK), 2016 WL 4581402, at 4 ||*1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016). Further, Plaintiffs represented by an attorney and nonetheless 5 || has failed to comply with the rules of procedure. See Holt v. .R.S., 231 Fed. App’x, 557, 6 ||558 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing action for 7 || failure to file an opposition and rejecting plaintiff's contention that the district court should 8 warned her of the consequences of failing to file an opposition). In sum, the majority 9 || of the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant FCA US, LLC’s Motion for 11 || Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED based on the lack of opposition 12 the reasons set forth herein. The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT 13 || PREJUDICE. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: September 3, 2026 NO 16 DE | 17 Honorable Linda Lopez 8 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28