Garcia v. LHO San Diego Hotel One, L.P.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's disability discrimination action under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) after Plaintiff failed to file an opposition brief or request an extension. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the action in its entirety without prejudice and without leave to amend.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES this action in its entirety without prejudice and without leave to amend.” | disagree with court · procedure The court relied on the local rule (CivLR 7.1.f.3.c) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Ghazali v. Moran) to grant the motion based on the plaintiff's failure to respond. While the court has discretion to grant unopposed motions based on local rules, dismissing a case 'without leave to amend' based solely on a procedural default (failure to file a brief) is legally questionable. Typically, a failure to respond to a 12(b)(6) motion results in a dismissal for failure to prosecute or a default judgment, or the court reviews the motion on the merits. Dismissing without leave to amend suggests a finding of futility or a specific procedural bar not explained in the order, which is inconsistent with the stated basis of 'failure to respond.' |
The order itself: questionable — The order cites the correct local rule and the correct Ninth Circuit case regarding the court's discretion to grant unopposed motions. However, the conclusion to dismiss 'without leave to amend' is not supported by the cited authority or the facts recited. Ghazali supports the *granting* of the motion, not the specific *consequence* of dismissal without leave to amend for a mere failure to file a brief. The order skips the analysis of why leave to amend is denied, making the result legally unsound based on the provided reasoning.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 20cv2371-MMA (JLB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 14 LHO SAN DIEGO HOTEL ONE, L.P., et al., [Doc. No. 4] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Orlando Garcia initiated this disability discrimination action in state court 19 against Defendants LHO San Diego Hotel One, L.P. and LHO San Diego Hotel One 20 Lessee, Inc. Defendants timely removed the action to this Court and now move to 21 dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). 22 See Doc. No. 4. The motion was filed on December 11, 2020 and set for hearing on 23 January 25, 2021. As such, Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the motion was due on or 24 before January 11, 2021. See CivLR 7.1.e.2. To date, Plaintiff has not submitted an 25 opposition brief, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to do so, despite 26 being properly served with the motion. 27 As set forth in this District’s Civil Local Rules, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file 28 the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute 1 consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” CivLR 2 ||7.1.f.3.c. The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed 3 motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not 4 require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 5 || 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendants’ 6 || motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to respond, and it chooses to do so. 7 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES this 8 || action in its entirety without prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is 9 ||instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || DATE: January 21, 2021 Vath whl WM ae Nhe 12 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28