Garcia v. Souldriver, L.P.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and the plaintiff failed to file a required opposition brief. The court vacated the hearing, granted the unopposed motion, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Dismiss Granted“GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss” | agree with court The court relied on the local rule permitting consent to a motion via failure to respond and the Ninth Circuit precedent allowing such grants. While the court noted the policy favoring merits, it correctly identified that a plaintiff's failure to defend against a 12(b)(6) motion prevents merits resolution. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural remedy for a failure to respond to a motion to dismiss, preserving the plaintiff's right to refile. |
Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice“DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint” | agree with court This is the direct consequence of granting the motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff's failure to respond. It is procedurally correct to dismiss without prejudice rather than with prejudice when the dismissal is based on a procedural default (failure to file an opposition) rather than a substantive deficiency in the pleadings. |
Hearing Vacated“VACATES the hearing set for June 9, 2021” | agree with court Since the motion was granted on the papers due to the lack of opposition, a hearing was unnecessary. This is a standard administrative step. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the local rule and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding unopposed motions. It acknowledges the general preference for merits but correctly distinguishes this case based on the plaintiff's failure to defend the complaint. The reasoning is concise and legally sound for a procedural dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No.: 21-CV-82 TWR (MSB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING HEARING AND 13 v. GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 14 SOULDRIVER, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; SOULDRIVER LESSEE, 15 (ECF No. 5) INC., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 16 1-10, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On October 30, 2020, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia filed this action against Defendants 20 Souldriver, L.P. and Souldriver Lessee, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of 21 San Diego. (See ECF No. 1-1.) On January 15, 2021, Defendants removed, (see ECF No. 22 1), and on March 3, 2021, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (“Mot.,” ECF No. 5). The Court set the Motion 24 for hearing on June 9, 2021. Pursuant to the undersigned’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, 25 Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition to the Motion on or before May 12, 26 2021. See also S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7.1.e.2 (stating that “each party opposing a motion . . . 27 must file that opposition or statement of non-opposition . . . not later than fourteen (14) 28 calendar days prior to the noticed hearing”). Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition brief 1 || or statement of non-opposition in response to Defendants’ Motion. (See Docket.) 2 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to 3 || dismiss where a local rule permits but does not require it to do so. See generally, Ghazali 4 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides, “[i]f 5 ||an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by [the relevant] Civil 6 Local Rule[s], that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other 7 request for ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendants’ 8 ||Motion on the basis of Plaintiffs failure to oppose. Generally, public policy favors 9 || disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 10 || (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move towards resolution on the merits when the 11 || plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a Rule 12 motion. Accordingly, the 12 ||Court VACATES the hearing set for June 9, 2021, GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed 13 || Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || Dated: June 4, 2021 —_—_ 17 | 9) (2 re 18 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 19 United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28